SALES representatives from the international pharmaceutical giant that produced anti-arthritis drug Vioxx wined and dined scores of doctors at some of the country's most expensive restaurants, including Melbourne's Flowerdrum, Circa the Prince and Jacques Reymond.
Documents tendered to the Federal Court as part of a class-action against US drug company Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharp and Dohme, reveal that sales and marketing staff spent thousands of dollars on meetings with medical specialists.
This included taking doctors out to restaurants, wineries and hotels across the country.
The internal 2001 Merck log titled "meetings held" showed sales staff spent up to $6000 on single meetings with doctors. Venues included Sydney's Taronga Zoo and Sheraton on the Park, the luxury Hydromajestic Hotel in the Blue Mountains and Melbourne's Aquarium.
With entries dated from March 2001 to December 2001, the log shows a number of doctors -- mostly rheumatologists -- were taken out up to three times each during that period. One arthritis specialist from Melbourne scored a meal at the Flowerdrum and Jaques Raymond within the space of a few weeks.
The document was tendered as part of the plaintiff's case against Merck. Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson -- along with more than 1000 other Australians -- claims Vioxx caused him to have a heart attack in 2003 and is suing the company. He alleges Merck knew of the cardiovascular risks of the drug, but downplayed them before it was recalled in 2004.
Vioxx was launched in 1999, and at its height was used by 80million people worldwide, because it did not cause stomach problems, unlike other anti-inflammatory drugs.
Merck has already settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85 billion ($6.9 billion), but has made no admission of guilt. The company is fighting the class action in Australia.
Other documents tendered to the court by the plaintiff reveal that Merck management in Asia and Australia were told not to "proactively" communicate the preliminary results of the VIGOR study in March 2000 after it found there was an increased risk of heart attacks among patients on Vioxx compared with another anti-inflammatory drug.
"Widespread communication/promotion of the preliminary results should not be undertaken at this time," the instruction said.
"This document should not be left with anyone outside the company. Discussions around VIGOR should NOT be proactively started with external customers at this time."
The document -- titled "Communication Strategy for VIGOR" -- was directed at the Asia-Pacific managing directors and instructs staff that if the topic of the research is brought up, "the emphasis" should be placed on positive findings on gastro-intestinal safety.
The Australian
2 comments:
To be fair this article by the Australian acts as though this sort of "wining and dining" and selective presentation of data is NOT the norm in the pharma industry, because it quite clearly is.
I'm not quite sure of the regulations in Australia, but its because of things like this (not just contained to one company) made the Irish government put in place regulations stopping pharma co's just bring people out for dinner/giving them holidays - although of course there are ways around this.
Essentially what I'm saying is, I don't like articles that act like this isn't the norm
Ed - your comment re "ways around this" is the issue.
It is the norm - but it's not right!
Times might be changing:
WASHINGTON - Millions of dollars in gifts, travel, and consulting fees from the pharmaceutical industry should be eliminated to stop companies from influencing how doctors practice medicine, a report by the government's top medical advisers says.
The sweeping recommendations from the Institute of Medicine call on medical professionals from university professors to family doctors to shun financial arrangements with companies.
The report calls on medical schools, hospitals, and physician groups to:
Publicly report funding they receive from companies.
Not accept free meals, gifts, or other items.
Prohibit doctors who have financial conflicts of interest from testing new therapies on people.
Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, and other medical schools are disclosing more about faculty members' conflicts of interest. But consumer advocates say more dramatic changes are needed.
In the last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa) has uncovered more than a half-dozen questionable arrangements between leading researchers and drug firms.
Perhaps the most vigorously defended practice is company support for so-called continuing medical education, where doctors learn about the latest treatments. Most state medical boards require physicians to attend a certain number of sessions each year.
The panel called for "a new system of funding . . . free of industry influence."
Industry's share of funding for medical education has swelled from 34 to 48 percent in the last 10 years, according to the Institute of Medicine.
Post a Comment