 |
|
Reporting Mortality Findings in Trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer Disease or Cognitive ImpairmentA Case Study Based on Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation
Bruce M. Psaty, MD, PhD;
Richard A. Kronmal, PhD
JAMA. 2008;299(15):1813-1817.
Sponsors have a marketing interest to represent their products in the best light. This approach conflicts with scientific standards that require the symmetric and comparable reporting of safety and efficacy data. Selective reporting of the results of clinical trials can misrepresent the risk-benefit profile of drugs. We summarize how the sponsor represented mortality findings associated with rofecoxib in clinical trials of patients with Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment. We reviewed documents that became available during litigation related to rofecoxib involving Merck & Co, including internal company analyses and information provided by the sponsor to the FDA. We also evaluated information in 2 published articles that reported results of these trials. In one article (reporting results of protocol 091) published in 2004, 11 "non-drug related deaths" were reported (9 deaths among 346 rofecoxib patients and 2 deaths among 346 placebo patients). In another article (reporting results of protocol 078) published in 2005, 39 deaths were reported among patients taking study treatment or within 14 days of the last dose (24 among 725 rofecoxib patients and 15 among 732 placebo patients) and an additional 22 deaths in the off-drug period (17 in rofecoxib patients and 5 in placebo patients). However, these articles did not include analyses or statistical tests of the mortality data, and the 2 articles concluded that regarding safety, rofecoxib is "well tolerated."
In contrast, in April 2001, the company's internal intention-to-treat analyses of pooled data from these 2 trials identified a significant increase in total mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 4.43; 95% CI, 1.26-15.53 for protocol 091, and HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.17-5.56 for protocol 078), with overall mortality of 34 deaths among 1069 rofecoxib patients and 12 deaths among 1078 placebo patients (HR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.55-5.77). These mortality analyses were neither provided to the FDA nor made public in a timely fashion. The data submitted by the sponsor to the FDA in a Safety Update Report in July 2001 used on-treatment analysis methods and reported 29 deaths (2.7%) among 1067 rofecoxib patients and 17 deaths (1.6%) among 1075 placebo patients. This on-treatment approach to reporting minimized the appearance of any mortality risk. In December 2001, when the FDA raised safety questions about the submitted safety data, the sponsor did not bring these issues to an institutional review board for review and revealed that there was no data and safety monitoring board for the protocol 078 study. The findings from this case study suggest that additional protections for human research participants, including new approaches for the conduct, oversight, and reporting of industry-sponsored trials, are necessary.
Author Affiliations: Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Services, University of Washington and Center for Health Studies, Group Health, Seattle (Dr Psaty); and the Collaborative Health Studies Coordinating Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Kronmal).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies
Kent R. Johnson and Marissa N. D. Lassere
JAMA. 2008;300(8):900.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies—Reply
Catherine D. DeAngelis and Phil B. Fontanarosa
JAMA. 2008;300(8):905-906.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation
Joseph S. Ross, Kevin P. Hill, David S. Egilman, and Harlan M. Krumholz
JAMA. 2008;299(15):1800-1812.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impugning the Integrity of Medical Science: The Adverse Effects of Industry Influence
Catherine D. DeAngelis and Phil B. Fontanarosa
JAMA. 2008;299(15):1833-1835.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Conflicts of Interest, Authorship, and Disclosures in Industry-Related Scientific Publications: The Tort Bar and Editorial Oversight of Medical Journals
Hirsch
Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84:811-821.
FULL TEXT
Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences
Sismondo
Social Studies of Science 2009;39:171-198.
ABSTRACT
Vulnerability in clinical research with patients in pain: a risk analysis.
Tait
J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:59-72.
Industrial-Academic Research Relationships: Departmental Collaborations
Lewin
Radiology 2009;250:23-27.
FULL TEXT
Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols
Chan et al.
BMJ 2008;337:a2299-a2299.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prescription Drugs, Products Liability, and Preemption of Tort Litigation
DeAngelis and Fontanarosa
JAMA 2008;300:1939-1941.
FULL TEXT
Industry-Sponsored Negative Trials and the Potential Pitfalls of Post Hoc Analysis
Tribble
Arch Surg 2008;143:933-934.
FULL TEXT
Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Broken System
Angell
JAMA 2008;300:1069-1071.
FULL TEXT
Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies
Johnson and Lassere
JAMA 2008;300:900-900.
FULL TEXT
Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies--Reply
DeAngelis and Fontanarosa
JAMA 2008;300:905-906.
FULL TEXT
Who is an author?
Swedberg
Eur J Heart Fail 2008;10:523-524.
FULL TEXT
FDA Guidance on Off-Label Promotion and the State of the Literature From Sponsors
Psaty and Ray
JAMA 2008;299:1949-1951.
FULL TEXT
Impugning the Integrity of Medical Science: The Adverse Effects of Industry Influence
DeAngelis and Fontanarosa
JAMA 2008;299:1833-1835.
FULL TEXT
|
