Dataset Information

Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented strategies to promote off-label use of drugs using journal publications and other means. Few studies have presented internal company communications that discussed financial reasons for manipulating the scholarly record related to off-label indications. The objective of this study was to build on previous studies to illustrate implementation of a publication strategy by the drug manufacturer for four off-label uses of gabapentin (Neurontin, Pfizer, Inc.): migraine prophylaxis, treatment of bipolar disorders, neuropathic pain, and nociceptive pain. METHODS: We included in this study internal company documents, email correspondence, memoranda, study protocols and reports that were made publicly available in 2008 as part of litigation brought by consumers and health insurers against Pfizer for fraudulent sales practices in its marketing of gabapentin (see http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=saris/pdf/ucl%20opinion.pdf for the Court's findings).We reviewed documents pertaining to 20 clinical trials, 12 of which were published. We categorized our observations related to reporting biases and linked them with topics covered in internal documents, that is, deciding what should and should not be published and how to spin the study findings (re-framing study results to explain away unfavorable findings or to emphasize favorable findings); and where and when findings should be published and by whom. RESULTS: We present extracts from internal company marketing assessments recommending that Pfizer and Parke-Davis (Pfizer acquired Parke-Davis in 2000) adopt a publication strategy to conduct trials and disseminate trial findings for unapproved uses rather than an indication strategy to obtain regulatory approval. We show internal company email correspondence and documents revealing how publication content was influenced and spin was applied; how the company selected where trial findings would be presented or published; how publication of study results was delayed; and the role of ghost authorship. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, the extracts we present from internal company documents illustrate implementation of a strategy at odds with unbiased study conduct and dissemination. Our findings suggest that Pfizer and Parke-Davis's publication strategy had the potential to distort the scientific literature, and thus misinform healthcare decision-makers.

SUBMITTER: Vedula SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3439687 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation.

Vedula S Swaroop SS Goldman Palko S PS Rona Ilyas J IJ Greene Thomas M TM Dickersin Kay K

Trials 20120813

<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies have documented strategies to promote off-label use of drugs using journal publications and other means. Few studies have presented internal company communications that discussed financial reasons for manipulating the scholarly record related to off-label indications. The objective of this study was to build on previous studies to illustrate implementation of a publication strategy by the drug manufacturer for four off-label uses of gabapentin (Neurontin, Pfiz ...[more]

PMID: 22888801

Similar Datasets

Project description:In 2009, the promulgation of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulation focused attention on cigarette flavor additives. The tobacco industry had prepared for this eventuality by initiating a research program focusing on additive toxicity. The objective of this study was to analyze Philip Morris' Project MIX as a case study of tobacco industry scientific research being positioned strategically to prevent anticipated tobacco control regulations.We analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents to identify internal strategies for research on cigarette additives and reanalyzed tobacco industry peer-reviewed published results of this research. We focused on the key group of studies conducted by Phillip Morris in a coordinated effort known as "Project MIX." Documents showed that Project MIX subsumed the study of various combinations of 333 cigarette additives. In addition to multiple internal reports, this work also led to four peer-reviewed publications (published in 2001). These papers concluded that there was no evidence of substantial toxicity attributable to the cigarette additives studied. Internal documents revealed post hoc changes in analytical protocols after initial statistical findings indicated an additive-associated increase in cigarette toxicity as well as increased total particulate matter (TPM) concentrations in additive-modified cigarette smoke. By expressing the data adjusted by TPM concentration, the published papers obscured this underlying toxicity and particulate increase. The animal toxicology results were based on a small number of rats in each experiment, raising the possibility that the failure to detect statistically significant changes in the end points was due to underpowering the experiments rather than lack of a real effect.The case study of Project MIX shows tobacco industry scientific research on the use of cigarette additives cannot be taken at face value. The results demonstrate that toxins in cigarette smoke increase substantially when additives are put in cigarettes, including the level of TPM. In particular, regulatory authorities, including the FDA and similar agencies elsewhere, could use the Project MIX data to eliminate the use of these 333 additives (including menthol) from cigarettes.

Project description:As complete reporting is essential to judge the validity and applicability of multivariable prediction models, a guideline for the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was introduced. We assessed the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies published just before the introduction of the TRIPOD statement, to refine and tailor its implementation strategy.Within each of 37 clinical domains, 10 journals with the highest journal impact factor were selected. A PubMed search was performed to identify prediction model studies published before the launch of TRIPOD in these journals (May 2014). Eligible publications reported on the development or external validation of a multivariable prediction model (either diagnostic or prognostic) or on the incremental value of adding a predictor to an existing model.We included 146 publications (84% prognostic), from which we assessed 170 models: 73 (43%) on model development, 43 (25%) on external validation, 33 (19%) on incremental value, and 21 (12%) on combined development and external validation of the same model. Overall, publications adhered to a median of 44% (25th-75th percentile 35-52%) of TRIPOD items, with 44% (35-53%) for prognostic and 41% (34-48%) for diagnostic models. TRIPOD items that were completely reported for less than 25% of the models concerned abstract (2%), title (5%), blinding of predictor assessment (6%), comparison of development and validation data (11%), model updating (14%), model performance (14%), model specification (17%), characteristics of participants (21%), model performance measures (methods) (21%), and model-building procedures (24%). Most often reported were TRIPOD items regarding overall interpretation (96%), source of data (95%), and risk groups (90%).More than half of the items considered essential for transparent reporting were not fully addressed in publications of multivariable prediction model studies. Essential information for using a model in individual risk prediction, i.e. model specifications and model performance, was incomplete for more than 80% of the models. Items that require improved reporting are title, abstract, and model-building procedures, as they are crucial for identification and external validation of prediction models.

Project description:ImportanceHomophobic bullying-which is motivated by actual or perceived sexual orientation-is a common experience among youth and is more strongly associated with adverse outcomes than bullying unrelated to bias. Yet current approaches to reducing homophobic bullying either lack empirical evidence or encounter significant obstacles. Thus, the field requires the identification of strategies that hold promise for reducing homophobic bullying.ObjectiveTo examine whether litigation is associated with reductions in homophobic bullying.Design, setting, and participantsIn this quasi-experimental study, difference-in-difference analysis was used to estimate the association between litigation and homophobic bullying, comparing students in schools that experienced litigation with students in schools that did not experience litigation, controlling for individual and school characteristics, study year, and county. Survey responses came from high school students from 499 schools participating in the California Healthy Kids Survey, the largest statewide survey of youth risk behaviors and protective factors, between 2001 and 2016. Legal data were collected from September 2018 to September 2019, and data were analyzed from February 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresOutcomes of litigation related to sexual orientation-based harassment and discrimination in California schools occurring after 2000.Main outcomes and measuresStudent reports of homophobic bullying.ResultsOf 1 448 778 included participants, 706 258 (48.7%) were male, 563 973 (38.9%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 14.6 (1.7) years. For cases where the plaintiff (student) secured monetary and/or injunctive relief through settlement or court decision, there was a 23% reduction in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of homophobic bullying in schools directly involved in the litigation relative to schools that did not experience litigation (ROR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.86). These benefits of litigation spilled over into schools in the same district as the schools experiencing litigation (ROR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81). However, homophobic bullying slightly increased in the school and district where the defendant (school) avoided adverse legal consequences, suggesting potential backlash.Conclusions and relevanceLitigation seeking to address alleged violations of the rights of students who are (or are perceived to be) lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender under laws prohibiting harassment or discrimination may lead to reductions in rates of homophobic bullying, with effect sizes comparable with that of resource-intensive school-based bullying interventions. These findings set the stage for future studies to evaluate the consequences of different litigation efforts aimed at redressing stigma-based harms among youth.

Dataset Information

Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation.

Publications

Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets