Deceptive Vioxx study uncovered?
Consider the source. It's good advice, whether you're talking about political surveys or medical "studies" spoken of in hushed tones.
We are going through the season of political "push" polls that are more interested in tying political opponents to unpopular positions than in ascertaining the opinions of the electorate.
In the medical research field, the equivalents are called "seeding studies." These studies are passed off as research, but they're really just meant to promote a new drug to doctors and patients.
And, low and behold, it turns out that Merck used a seeding study to promote its long-since-discredited painkiller Vioxx to the medical community.
Internal memos show that 1999 Merck "research" on Vioxx was actually a seeding study interested mainly in promoting the drug. And the medical community fell for it hook, line and sinker.
That Merck study was called "Advantage," and the Annals of Internal Medicine published it in 2003. Legal teams found memos indicating the impetus for the study came from Merck marketers, who hatched the idea to recruit a key group of doctors to participate in a study that was really designed to get them more familiar with the product.
Someone even nominated "Advantage" for internal Merck marketing awards.
One memo stated the objective of "Advantage" was "to provide product trial among a key physician group to accelerate uptake of Vioxx as the second entrant in a highly competitive new class."
Vioxx was introduced in 1999 and once brought in as much as $2.5 billion a year, before it was linked to heart attacks and strokes and Merck had to pull it from the market.
What's the end result of all this going to be for Merck? Probably nothing. We all know the FDA isn't going to stand up to them or put any of their new products on ice for a while.
But I hope the medical community – and consumers – will look at future research on Merck drugs with a whole lot of skepticism. They deserve it.
