Literature DB >> 18711155

The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents.

Kevin P Hill1, Joseph S Ross, David S Egilman, Harlan M Krumholz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Seeding trials, clinical studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies that are designed to seem as if they answer a scientific question but primarily fulfill marketing objectives, have not been described in detail.
PURPOSE: To describe a known seeding trial, ADVANTAGE (Assessment of Differences between Vioxx and Naproxen To Ascertain Gastrointestinal Tolerability and Effectiveness), through documents of the trial sponsor, Merck & Co. (Whitehouse Station, New Jersey). DATA SOURCES: Merck internal and external correspondence, reports, and presentations elicited to inform legal proceedings of Cona v Merck and Co., Inc., and McDarby v Merck and Co., Inc. The documents were created between 1998 and 2006. DATA EXTRACTION: An iterative case-study process of review, discussion, and re-review of documents to identify themes relevant to the design and conduct of ADVANTAGE. To supplement the case-study review, the authors did a systematic review of the literature to identify published manuscripts focused on seeding trials and their conduct. DATA SYNTHESIS: Review of the documents revealed 3 key themes: The trial was designed by Merck's marketing division to fulfill a marketing objective; Merck's marketing division handled both the scientific and the marketing data, including collection, analysis, and dissemination; and Merck hid the marketing nature of the trial from participants, physician investigators, and institutional review board members. Although the systematic review of the literature identified 6 articles that focused on the practice of seeding trials, none provided documentary evidence of their existence or conduct. LIMITATIONS: The legal documents in these cases provide useful, but limited, information about the practices of the pharmaceutical industry. This description of 1 company's actions is incomplete and may have limited generalizability.
CONCLUSION: Documentary evidence shows that ADVANTAGE is an example of marketing framed as science. The documents indicate that ADVANTAGE was a seeding trial developed by Merck's marketing division to promote prescription of Vioxx (rofecoxib) when it became available on the market in 1999.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18711155     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-4-200808190-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  34 in total

1.  The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials.

Authors:  Gisela Schott; Henry Pachl; Ulrich Limbach; Ursula Gundert-Remy; Wolf-Dieter Ludwig; Klaus Lieb
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Integrity in scientific publishing.

Authors:  Drummond Rennie
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications.

Authors:  Joseph S Ross; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Research ethics. Rethinking research ethics: the case of postmarketing trials.

Authors:  Alex John London; Jonathan Kimmelman; Benjamin Carlisle
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals.

Authors:  Laurence J Hirsch
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 7.616

6.  Does family medicine have a professional obligation to play a leading role in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored drug research?: no.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Counterpoint: were industry-sponsored roflumilast trials appropriate? No.

Authors:  Jason Rho; Nancy Ho; Vinay Prasad
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 8.  Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review.

Authors:  Natalie McGauran; Beate Wieseler; Julia Kreis; Yvonne-Beatrice Schüler; Heike Kölsch; Thomas Kaiser
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Unhealthy marketing of pharmaceutical products: An international public health concern.

Authors:  Shai Mulinari
Journal:  J Public Health Policy       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 2.222

10.  Study of neurontin: titrate to effect, profile of safety (STEPS) trial: a narrative account of a gabapentin seeding trial.

Authors:  Samuel D Krumholz; David S Egilman; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-06-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.