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: 2484

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: Journal Article

Charatan F.
Doctor sues company over unethical marketing.
BMJ 2002 May 25; 324:(7348):1234
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7348/1234/b


Abstract:

Dr David Franklin, a former employee of the Warner- Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, has filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that its sales representatives encouraged doctors to prescribe gabapentin (Neurontin) for unapproved uses. Gabapentin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994 for the treatment of epilepsy, including elementary partial seizures and complex partial seizures with impaired consciousness. Dr Franklin has accused Warner-Lambert’s sales representatives of encouraging doctors to prescribe the drug for pain, bipolar disorder, and attention deficit disorder in children. Unsealed court documents show that some doctors, in exchange for money, allowed sales representatives into their examining rooms to meet patients, review medical charts, and recommend what drugs to prescribe. Dr Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said having sales representatives tell doctors what to prescribe while examining patients was “inexcusable.” “Drug companies have no business being involved in education or clinical care,” she said (New York Times, 15 May, p B2). The documents also show that Warner-Lambert tracked whether doctors prescribed gabapentin and rewarded those who were considered high volume prescribers by paying them as speakers and consultants and also paying them to enter patients in clinical trials. Dr Franklin estimated that Warner-Lambert’s tracking programme involved 75 to 100 doctors in several northeastern states. Each doctor was paid $350 (£240; E385) or more for each day that they let sales representatives watch as they examined patients. It is also alleged that Warner-Lambert tried to influence doctors who wrote articles about gabapentin for medical journals by paying them, sometimes secretly, and even hiring a marketing company to write first drafts. (full text)

Keywords:
Acetic Acids/therapeutic use Advertising/legislation & jurisprudence* Amines* Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use Conflict of Interest* Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids* Drug Industry/standards* Ethics, Professional* Humans United States gamma-Aminobutyric Acid* *news story United States relationship with pharmaceutical industry conflict-of-interest Neurontin ETHICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTION: LINKS BETWEEN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND INDUSTRY PROMOTION DISGUISED: GHOST-WRITING AND JOURNAL ARTICLES PROMOTIONAL TECHNIQUES: UNLABELED INDICATIONS SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH

 

  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








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.