Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation

Department of Geriatrics and Adult Development, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York 10029, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 05/2008; 299(15):1800-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.15.1800
Source: PubMed


Authorship in biomedical publication provides recognition and establishes accountability and responsibility. Recent litigation related to rofecoxib provided a unique opportunity to examine guest authorship and ghostwriting, practices that have been suspected in biomedical publication but for which there is little documentation.
To characterize different types and the extent of guest authorship and ghostwriting in 1 case study.
Court documents originally obtained during litigation related to rofecoxib against Merck & Co Inc. Documents were created predominantly between 1996 and 2004. In addition, publicly available articles related to rofecoxib identified via MEDLINE.
All documents were reviewed by one author, with selected review by coauthors, using an iterative process of review, discussion, and rereview of documents to identify information related to guest authorship or ghostwriting.
Approximately 250 documents were relevant to our review. For the publication of clinical trials, documents were found describing Merck employees working either independently or in collaboration with medical publishing companies to prepare manuscripts and subsequently recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors. Recruited authors were frequently placed in the first and second positions of the authorship list. For the publication of scientific review papers, documents were found describing Merck marketing employees developing plans for manuscripts, contracting with medical publishing companies to ghostwrite manuscripts, and recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors. Recruited authors were commonly the sole author on the manuscript and offered honoraria for their participation. Among 96 relevant published articles, we found that 92% (22 of 24) of clinical trial articles published a disclosure of Merck's financial support, but only 50% (36 of 72) of review articles published either a disclosure of Merck sponsorship or a disclosure of whether the author had received any financial compensation from the company.
This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support. Review manuscripts were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose industry financial support.

  • Source
    • "This raises the possibility that another explanation for the divergent UK–US patterns of detected violations lies in differences in the types of complainant and in the nature and extent of investigations pursued. Crucially, US complainants are whistleblowers that offer first-hand testimonies and documentation of company practices[5,34,39,40]. Complainants' allegations are in turn subject to wide-ranging and prolonged investigations by the DOJ that will involve,for example, in-depth interrogation of complainants, subpoenas for documents or electronic records, witness interviews, consultations with experts, and sometimes search warrants to obtain further evidence. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: European Union law prohibits companies from marketing drugs off-label. In the United Kingdom-as in some other European countries, but unlike the United States-industry self-regulatory bodies are tasked with supervising compliance with marketing rules. The objectives of this study were to (1) characterize off-label promotion rulings in the UK compared to the whistleblower-initiated cases in the US and (2) shed light on the UK self-regulatory mechanism for detecting, deterring, and sanctioning off-label promotion. Methods and findings: We conducted structured reviews of rulings by the UK self-regulatory authority, the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), between 2003 and 2012. There were 74 off-label promotion rulings involving 43 companies and 65 drugs. Nineteen companies were ruled in breach more than once, and ten companies were ruled in breach three or more times over the 10-y period. Drawing on a typology previously developed to analyse US whistleblower complaints, we coded and analysed the apparent strategic goals of each off-label marketing scheme and the practices consistent with those alleged goals. 50% of rulings cited efforts to expand drug use to unapproved indications, and 39% and 38% cited efforts to expand beyond approved disease entities and dosing strategies, respectively. The most frequently described promotional tactic was attempts to influence prescribers (n = 72, 97%), using print material (70/72, 97%), for example, advertisements (21/70, 30%). Although rulings cited prescribers as the prime target of off-label promotion, competing companies lodged the majority of complaints (prescriber: n = 16, 22%, versus companies: n = 42, 57%). Unlike US whistleblower complaints, few UK rulings described practices targeting consumers (n = 3, 4%), payers (n = 2, 3%), or company staff (n = 2, 3%). Eight UK rulings (11%) pertaining to six drugs described promotion of the same drug for the same off-label use as was alleged by whistleblowers in the US. However, while the UK cases typically related to only one or a few claims made in printed material, several complaints in the US alleged multifaceted and covert marketing activities. Because this study is limited to PMCPA rulings and whistleblower-initiated federal cases, it may offer a partial view of exposed off-label marketing. Conclusion: The UK self-regulatory system for exposing marketing violations relies largely on complaints from company outsiders, which may explain why most off-label promotion rulings relate to plainly visible promotional activities such as advertising. This contrasts with the US, where Department of Justice investigations and whistleblower testimony have alleged complex off-label marketing campaigns that remain concealed to company outsiders. UK authorities should consider introducing increased incentives and protections for whistleblowers combined with US-style governmental investigations and meaningful sanctions. UK prescribers should be attentive to, and increasingly report, off-label promotion.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016 · PLoS Medicine
  • Source
    • "2011; Larkin et al. 2014; Austad et al. 2014; Becker et al. 2011a). Particularly, revealing evidence of how marketing biases medical knowledge and practice has emerged from a number of high-profile legal cases in the United States where company employees or former employees from many major global companies have acted as " whistleblowers " to uncover illicit activities (Steinman et al. 2006; Ross et al. 2008; Spielmans 2009; Mello et al. 2009; Spielmans and Parry 2010; Kesselheim, Mello and Studdert 2011; Dukes et al. 2014 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This essay reviews work in sociology and cognate fields regarding pharmaceutical marketing and its regulation. In particular, it considers how this literature contributes to a better understanding of the process of pharmaceuticalization, defined as “the translation or transformation of human conditions, capabilities, and capacities into opportunities for pharmaceutical intervention.” The review addresses two research areas that offer productive avenues of investigations of the marketing-regulatory nexus in the context of pharmaceuticalization. The first concerns the sociopolitical mechanisms underlying development and enforcement of marketing rules. The second considers the impact of rules and enforcement schemes on corporate marketing practices and, consequently, on the shaping of pharmaceutical markets and health.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016 · Sociology Compass
  • Source
    • "La sociedad ha permitido a la comunidad médica autorregularse , otorgando una gran confianza a la profesión, confianza que se ve erosionada por las influencias que tienen determinados intereses secundarios sobre los que deben ser los intereses primarios prevalentes. La existencia de intereses propios en los actores que participan en el proceso de creación , difusión y aplicación del conocimiento científico , intereses que pueden entrar en conflicto con la atención al paciente y la salud de la sociedad, ha minado la confianza tanto de los ciudadanos como de los profesionales de la salud en la literatura publicada en revistas revisadas (Ross y otros, 2008; Sismondo, 2009). En este escenario, la declaración de las relaciones financieras con las compañías farmacéuticas es percibida como un paso esencial en la gestión del espectro de potenciales conflictos de interés en la publicación de la investigación (Liesegang y Schachat, 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resumen: Los vínculos profesionales y financieros entre la industria farmacéutica y las personas e instituciones que llevan a cabo investigación, formación y práctica médicas pueden provocar que intereses individuales o corporativos influyan en la toma de decisiones y en el juicio profesional. Esta situación de posible conflicto de intereses amenaza la integridad de la investigación, la objetividad de la educación médica, la calidad de la atención al paciente y, de forma más general, la confianza pública en la medicina. Una estrategia para proteger la integridad de la investigación y mantener la confianza pública es la comunicación de los posibles conflictos de interés de los autores cuando publican los resultados en las revistas científicas. El presente trabajo analiza las políticas editoriales de declaración de conflictos de interés de las 16 revistas de orientación clínica publicadas en España incluidas en el JCR del año 2011. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto que la mayoría de revistas incluyen en sus instrucciones para autores al menos una mención a la necesidad de declarar los conflictos de interés y ofrecen algún tipo de descripción de estas situaciones, si bien se trata de definiciones laxas sobre las relaciones económicas que se deben declarar, y sin que especifiquen el alcance de las relaciones personales. En la mayor parte de los casos no existen formularios estándar de declaración de conflictos de interés, no se determina el tiempo durante el que puede considerarse que una relación es susceptible de generarlo, no se indica quién y cómo evaluará las declaraciones, ni se indica si las declaraciones se publicarán en los artículos. Palabras clave: Biomedicina; conflictos de interés; industria farmacéutica; políticas editoriales; revistas clínicas. Conflict of interest disclosure policies in clinically oriented Spanish biomedical journals Abstract: Professional and financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and persons and institutions carrying out research, conducting medical training, and practicing medicine can lead to individual or corporate interests influencing decision-making and professional judgment. These conflicts of interest threaten the integrity of research, the objectivity of medical education, the quality of patient care and, more generally, public confidence in medicine. A strategy to protect research integrity and maintain public trust is for authors to communicate their possible conflicts of interest in the studies they publish. This paper analyses the editorial policies of the 16 clinically oriented biomedical journals published in Spain that were included in the JCR in 2011, in relation to authors' conflict of interest declarations. Results show that, in their instructions to authors, most journals mention the need to disclose possible conflicts of interest and offer some sort of description of such situations. However, the definitions are lax concerning which economic relations should be declared and do not specify the extent of personal relationships. In most cases there is no standard form for declaring conflicts of interest; there is no indication of the period of time during which a relationship can be considered likely to generate a conflict; there is no indication of who will evaluate these statements and how they will be evaluated; and there is no indication as to whether these statements will be published in the articles.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Revista española de Documentación Científica
Show more