corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18346

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Electronic Source

Silverman E
A Medical Journal And A 'Slick' Paper About Niaspan
Pharmalot 2010 July 7
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/07/a-medical-journal-and-a-slick-paper-about-niaspan/


Full text:

Last week, the American Journal of Cardiology published a paper that carried a curious title: “Linguistic Analysis of In-Office Dialogue Among Cardiologists, Primary Care Physicians, and Patients With Mixed Dyslipidemia.” In short, this examined the discussions between 24 doctors – 12 cardiologists and 12 primary care physicians – and 45 patients who were diagnosed with high cholsterol. The subject of their chat? Treatment with Niaspan, a drug sold by Abbott Labs.
The paper found docs didn’t do well discussing the problem and their patients are poor listeners. And the study made an interesting observation – that only one doc noted Niaspan will improve HDL and offer protection from heart blockages or development of plaque in the arteries. However, as CardioBrief pointed out, there is no evidence Niaspan does such things. Morever, the paper failed to discuss other treatments or diet and exercise, prompting the impression this was really an Abbott marketing study.
The paper, in fact, was funded by Abbott. One of the authors, Alan Brown of Midwest Heart Specialists, has a track record of contributing to AJC supplments and to CME programs, CardioBrief notes. Another author, Corey Eagan, works at MBS/Vox, which is part of the CommonHealth marketing company, which has worked on Niaspan (see here).
So we asked William Roberts, the AJC editor and the executive director of the Baylor Cardiovascular Institute of Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, about the decision to publish this paper. “I thought this was a plus or minus article to be honest. By that I mean borderline. It was gutsy to be published, to be frank with you. But this sort of thing (cholesterol lowering discussions with patients) comes up in physician all the time,” he tells us.
“The idea that it’s really an Abbott marketing study for niaspan, I think that’s a little strong…I’m not really interested in knowing the marketing literature of every pharmaceutical company, but my own view is the American people are not treated adequately with the lipid-lowering drugs that we have,” he continues. “…I’m in favor of articles that stimulate discussion of more lipid-lowering drugs or patients to take them…I thought this was an article in a way that had a purpose, a function…”
However, Roberts does acknowledge flaws. “It’s not the ideal authorship, by any means…If you look at the 650 articles published in the AJC each year, this is an exception….Is the quality diluted or contaminated if there is a pharmaceutical person as an author on the manuscript? You can debate that a good while…If i had to do it over again, I certainly woudn’t have allowed a single drug to be mentioned…In retrospect, discussion or mention of one drug and not a whole bunch of them is a little slick.”
Hats Off To Larry

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909