You Say You Want Some Revolutions? - Famed Academic Physician Dr Milton Packer's Endless Alternating Turns as Drug Company Spokesperson and FDA Advisor

Last week, we noted  we again discussed the web of conflicts of interest that is draped over medicine and health care, and seems responsible for much of our current health care dysfunction.  We have discussed examples of conflicts of interest affecting clinical research, clinical teaching, clinical care, and health care policy.  Each time I think we must have cataloged all the useful examples, a striking new one appears.

Only a few days later, yet another new variant has in fact appeared.

A New Kind of Revolving Door

A new version of the "revolving door" apparently was first noted by Public Citizen, and then reported by Ed Silverman at Pharmalot. 

The usual version of the revolving door occurs when a person transitions from a full-time job in industry to a government position which has regulatory authority or other influence over that same industry, or vica versa.  We have discussed various health care manifestations of that revolving door here.

The new version, as described by Mr Silverman, in its manifestation at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is:

the agency allows some experts who serve on its advisory panels to also make presentations at other meetings of these same panels on behalf of drug makers. By allowing some people to wear different hats within a short amount of time, the advocacy group charges the FDA creates the potential for bias to creep into the proceedings.

The Public Citizen letter to the FDA summarized the problem,

In particular, a sponsor’s use of an individual who serves, or has recently served, as a voting member of an FDA advisory committee to present its case before that member’s colleagues on the committee takes advantage of the special collegiality existing among members in order to improve a company’s chances of a favorable vote. Furthermore, such a revolving door raises concerns about the objectivity of committee members who accept such paid arrangements, with FDA’s approval, at future hearings involving the same or a rival company.

Someone Familiar Going Round and Round

The Public Citizen letter used as an example one well-known academic physician who seemed to have made many revolutions in this sort of revolving door.  As summarized in the PharmaLot post,

As an example, Public Citizen cites a meeting this past March 27 of the FDA’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee, which was held to review an application for a Novartis drug called serelaxin to treat acute heart failure. And Milton Packer, who chairs the department of clinical sciences at UT Southwestern, appeared as a paid speaker on behalf of Novartis.

In his opening remarks, Packer disclosed that Novartis paid for his time and travel, according to the advocacy group. But because he is also considered to be a ‘special government employee,’ which is how advisory panel members are classified, he obtained permission from the FDA to participate as a paid speaker for Novartis (see page 31 here).

However, Packer served as a temporary voting member of the same FDA advisory committee less than two months earlier. Moreover, Public Citizen says this was the sixth time, since Packer first presided as chair of this committee in 1997, that he had 'spoken on behalf of and/or served as a (presumably) paid consultant' to drug makers whose meds were being reviewed at those meetings.

The other occasions in which Packer appeared before the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory committee involved speaking on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2002; acting as a consultant and speaker for GlaxoSmithKline in 2003; appearing as a speaker for NitroMed in 2005; appearing as a speaker for Sanofi in 2009 and acting as a consultant on behalf of Pfizer in 2010.

In fact, the Public Citizen letter also asserted that

Dr. Packer’s presence as an FDA advisory committee member at hearings extends beyond the CRDAC, as he has also participated in at least three meetings of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and served at least once on the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee since 2005.

We note with concern that, as with his revolving-door tenure at CRDAC, Dr. Packer has similarly worked with industry in the following capacities at non-CRDAC advisory committees while intermittently serving as a recurring member of some of these same committees:

- As a consultant to Centocor for its presentation on infliximab (Remicade) to the March 4, 2003, meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee;
- As an 'external expert' cited by GlaxoSmithKline at the July 30, 2007, joint meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committees to discuss the cardiac ischemic risks of the thiazolidinedione diabetes drugs, with a focus on rosiglitazone (Avandia); and
- As a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim for its presentation concerning the drug tiotropium (Spiriva HandiHaler), made before the November 19, 2009, meeting of the Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee.

Summary

Dr Milton Packer served as a presumably paid spokesperson for six different pharmaceutical companies advocating for six different drugs at meetings of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee.  Over roughly the same time period he served as the chair, acting chair, or voting member of that same committee in numerous instances.  Also, Dr Packer served as a presumably paid spokesperson for one of the same drug companies, and for two additional drug companies advocating for another three drugs at meetings of three other FDA advisory committees.  On various occasions he had also served as a member of these three committees.  Parenthetically, one of the drugs for which Dr Packer, a cardiologist, advocated, Avandia, to a non-cardiologic committee was subsequently pulled from the market because of concerns about excess cardiologic complications (look here). 

Dr Packer repeatedly went back and forth between roles as a paid advocate for drug companies and as a member or chair of federal advisory committees which could influence FDA decisions about the drugs for which he advocated and which were made by the companies that employed him.


It certainly seems that Public Citizen was right in that the sorts of transitions Dr Packer made constituted multiple conflicts of interest, and that his work for multiple drug companies was likely to have distorted the recommendations of the committees on which he served.  Rapid transitions between temporary committee memberships and paid advocacy positions before such committees does seem to be a new version of the revolving door, and newly discovered type of conflict of interest.  It seems that conflicts of interest now pervade every aspect of health care, with huge cumulative effects on clinical and health policy decision making.

Note also that the person whose conflicts of interest were used as examples by Public Citizen just appeared in Health Care Renewal in another capacity.  Earlier this month we discussed a study (PARADIGM - HF) of a new drug for congestive heart failure (sacubitril) which received prominent media attention.  After various people, not limited to yours truly, pointed out that this study seemed to have multiple flaws which undercut claims that the new drug would be a "game changer," the principal investigator of the study delivered a written whupping to a critic whose writing appeared prominently on a cardiology web-site .  The scathing comeback, however, seemed based on a volley of logical fallacies, including repetitive ad hominem attacks on the critic (look here).  The PARADIGM - HF Principal Investigator was none other than the same Dr Milton Packer whose revolving door cycles were discussed above.  Note that the company that sponsored, and largely ran and designed PARADIGM - HF, and which paid Dr Packer to serve as Principal Investigator, was the same Novartis for whom Dr Packer was a spokesperson in the first example above. 

We wondered whether Dr Packer's conflicts of interest contributed to confused, illogical thinking and his apparently logically fallacious response to his critic.  Now it appears that Dr Packer has been immersed much more deeply in conflicts of interest than were apparent a few days ago.  So should he be regarded mainly as a heart failure "expert," or mainly as a paid marketer and public relations man for drug companies?  Obviously, he is both, but the mixture is not so clear.  The concern is all the more important because Dr Packer has become such a prominent medical academic.

So once again, again, again,...  we call for all conflicts to be disclosed in the interests of honesty.  Beyond that, as we have been saying for years, patients' and the public's health would benefit from an aggressive effort to reduce conflicts of interest affecting clinical and health policy decision making.    

Logical Fallacies in Defense of the PARADIGM - HF Trial of Valsartan - Sacubitril, Suppsedly the "Game Changer" for Heart Failure

We frequently discuss how commercial sponsors manipulate clinical research to serve their interests.  There have been many cases of commercially sponsored controlled trials ostensibly designed to assess their sponsors' products manipulated to make these products look better.

Unfortunately, often such manipulation seems to escape public notice.  What skepticism they may generate often gets little notice, an example of the anechoic effect.  Very rarely do the people responsible for the trial deign to address skeptical criticism. 

However, we recently noted that cogent criticism of a very recently published trial got some circulation, leading to a dialogue with the trial's principal investigator.  The results seemed to show why those involved with manipulated sponsored trials often try to just ignore criticism.

Introduction - the PARADIGM - HF Trial of Valsartan - Sacubitril


As we recently posted, based on a new article now online in the New England Journal of Medicine, a combination of a new drug, sacubitril, in a new class, naprilysin inhibitors, with an older drug, valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), has been hailed as a "game changer" for patients with heart failure.  However, although the study (entitled PARADIGM - HF) had many good features, it also had some major problems which made its interpretation difficult, and made the hype about "new hope" seem excessive.  Unbeknownst to me when I wrote the post, some pithy overlapping criticisms of PARADIGM - HF by Dr Vinay Prasad were posted on CardioExchange.

Surprisingly, Dr Prasad's post elicited a lengthy comment by Dr Milton Packer, the principal investigator of PARADIGM - HF, defending the study's methods.  This resulted in a back-and-forth between him and Dr Prasad.  (Available by subscription only.)  This seems to be on of those rare instances in which a pillar of the medical establishment was willing to defend the way things are done these days in health care, and in this case, the way commercially sponsored randomized controlled trials are designed.

In my humble opinion, this exchange illustrated one reason that most criticisms about flaws in commercially funded clinical research get the silent treatment: there really are not good explanations for them, other than they resulted from the intention to increase the likelihood that the sponsors' products would look better than they really are.

Let us consider in detail some of the written comments by Dr Packer addressing two major criticisms by Dr Prasad.

The Question about the Choice of Comparator

Dr Prasad and I both questioned the choice of the drug to which valsartan - sacubitril was compared.  Dr Prasad wrote,

In PARADIGM-HF, oral enalapril was dosed up to 10 mg twice daily, whereas LCZ696 was dosed up to 200 mg twice daily (which includes a cumulative 320 mg of valsartan). The problem is that 320 mg is the maximum HF dose of valsartan per drug labeling, but enalapril can be dosed up to 40 mg daily (20 mg twice daily) — double the maximum dose proscribed per protocol.

So,

In effect, drug dosing in PARADIGM-HF was a 'straw man' comparison. The reported outcomes may be entirely a consequence of more ARB versus less ACE inhibitor. That is reason enough to doubt the findings. Sacubutil, the novel drug, could have been a sugar pill, and the results may well have turned out the same. But there are two more good reasons to be skeptical.

Note that in effect Dr Prasad charged that the entire trial was based on a logical fallacy, the "straw man" fallacy.

Dr Packer's Response: Red Herrings, Ad Hominem Fallacies, and Appeals to Authority

Red Herring - Comparison to Trial with a Different Patient Population

Dr Packer made several responses to this criticism.  First,  he asserted that using the maximum dose of enalapril as a target dose would have been inappropriate,

Dr. Prasad proposes that the dose of enalapril was too low, and we should have used 40 mg daily of enalapril as a comparator. However, when 40 mg of enalapril daily has been used in a clinical trial (CONSENSUS), these extremely high doses were poorly tolerated due to hypotension and renal insufficiency.

However, that appears to be to be an example of the red herring fallacy.  The PARADIGM - HF trial was meant to include patients with mild to severe symptoms of CHF (CHF classes II - IV), although it actually included a few (about 5%) patients with no symptoms (class I).  However, as Dr Prasad pointed out in his later comeback,

Dr. Packer suggests that CONSENSUS trial proves that enalapril 40 cannot be given safely. It is worth noting this trial enrolled only NY Heart Classification IV patients, while these were less than 1% of pts in PARADIGM HF. Many patients in PARADIGM HF might well have been able to tolerate and benefit from enalapril 40mg.

So Dr Packer's argument based on a trial of only the sickest patients with CHF seems likely not be relevant to discussion of a trial of patients with much milder disease.

Red Herring - Physiologic Changes vs Patient-Centered Outcomes

Then, Dr countered Dr Prasad's concern that the design of PARADIGM - HF could not distinguish whether the apparent benefits of valsartan (at maximum dose) and sacubitril versus enalapril (at a moderate dose) were due to the valsartan alone versus the combination thus,

Furthermore, Dr. Prasad can provide no evidence whatsoever than valsaratan 160 mg BID produces more blockade of the renin-angiotensin system than enalapril 10 mg BID. It is simply not true.

This seems to be an even better example of the red herring fallacy.  The argument is not about the physiological changes the drugs may or may not produce.  It is about the design of a clinical trial and how that design could affect interpretation of patient-centered outcomes.  Degree of renin-angiotensin system blockade may not directly predict survival, hospitalization, functional status, etc.

Red Herring - References to a Trial of Valsartan in Addition to ACE Inhibitors

Appended to the above, Dr Packer wrote,

In fact, valsartan 160 mg BID does not even have a mortality effect when compared with placebo, whereas enalapril 10 mg BID does have a survival benefit.

It later became apparent that the evidence he felt supported this assertion came from yet another trial with an alphabet soup name, Val - HEFT.  But, as Dr Prasad argued, this was yet another red herring,

The VAL-HEFT trial– where Valsartan 160 BID was no better than placebo– occurred in the setting where 92% of patients were already on an ace-inhibitor. As such, it cannot be used to say what the effect of valsartan is among patients not taking an ace-inhibitor, as was the case in PARADIGM-HF.

To explain a bit, the Val - HEFT trial enrolled patients who were nearly all already taking an ACEI, including enalapril.  So its data could only speak to the question of whether adding valsartan to an ACEI has an effect, not whether valsartan alone is efficacious in CHF.  It does not appear that there has ever been a large, long-term randomized controlled trial that tested valsartan versus placebo for CHF.   So Dr Packer seemed to have supplied another quite large red herring.

Of course that raises the question of why  PARADIGM - HF only assessed the combination of  sacubitril plus valsartan, rather than sacubitril combined with other ARBs.  This question was not directly addressed in the exchange between Dr Packer and Dr Prasad.  Parenthetically, note that valsartan is sold by Novartis, the sponsor of PADADIGM - HF, as Diovan.

Dr Packer only complicated things later by writing,


if Dr. Prasad dismisses the evidence from Val-HeFT, he eliminates ALL of the evidence that supports the use of valsartan in heart failure. If he sets the Val-HeFT trial aside, what evidence is there that valsartan 160 mg BID does ANYTHING in heart failure?

Again, Dr Packer was the one supposedly responsible for the choice of valsartan as the ARB to combine with sacubitril.

In summary thus far, I could not find any instance in the exchange in which Dr Packer logically used evidence to explain why his trial compared valsartan (targeted to maximum dose) plus sacubitril to enalapril (targeted to a moderate dose).  Instead, his arguments seemed to consist of multiple examples of the red herring fallacy.

Ad Hominem - Dr Prasad's Degree of Understanding of the Heart Failure Literature

Instead, he also threw in some additional general points which appeared to be rather gratuitously fallacious, To start,

 

I wish that Dr. Prasad understood the field of heart failure trials better than he does,

Then,

I wish Dr Prasad understood the heart failure literature better.

These seem to be examples of the ad hominem fallacy.  Rather than addressing the logic and evidence used by Dr Prasad, Dr Packer implied that Dr Prasad simply lacks understanding. Dr Prasad's polite response was,

Dr. Packer could tighten his posts by reducing the number of times he wishes I understood the heart failure literature better.

Appeal to Authority - Dr Packer's and Colleagues' Implied Superior Expertise on the Medical Literature

That did not prevent Dr Packer from coming back with,

 

I suggested that Dr. Prasad become more familiar with the medical literature because it would save him considerable time in formulating useful arguments.

With this repetition, Dr Packer seems to be not only using the ad hominem fallacy, but implying the fallacy of the appeal to authority. The implication is that Dr Packer clearly is an expert, and Dr Prasad is not, and the expert should be heeded. Just to underline this, Dr Packer later wrote,

Dr. Prasad suggests that others share his concerns. If he were here in Barcelona at the ESC meeting, he would know that that was not the case. However, I realize that It is common for those who seek only to win debates to claim that others agree with them. But Dr. Prasad, wishing that people agree with you does not make it true.

That just makes it worse. The implication is that all the experts in Barcelona agree with Dr Packer, and hence as a group they must be right. By the way, it is obvious from our previous blog post, comments on it, and other comments on the CardioExchange exchange that there are at least other people who agree with Dr Prasad.

Appeals to Authority - The New England Journal of Medicine and the US Food and Drug Administration Must Always be Totally Right

Not to leave it there, Dr Packer added as general comments several other appeals to authority.  At the end of his first set of comments there was this,

The real lesson of PARADIGM-HF is that combined angiotensin receptor neprilsyin inhibition is superior to inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system alone in patients with chronic heart failure. That is the conclusion of our paper, which passes stringent peer review in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The implication is that no paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine should ever be questioned about anything.  Also,


 

it does not appear that you are aware of the criteria that the FDA uses to evaluate or approve new drugs for cardiovascular disease.

This added the appeal to authority that since the FDA approved this trial, there must be nothing major wrong with it, to another implied ad hominem about Dr Prasad's lack of awareness.

Thus it seemed that Dr Packer's defense of his PARADIGM - HF study's choice of drugs to compare was based almost entirely on a string of logical fallacies, rather than logic and evidence.

The Question of Run-In Period Bias

Dr Prasad's other major criticism of his trial had to do with its use of active run-in periods.  He wrote,

The reason why drug run-in periods are problematic is discussed at length in the literature. In short, run-in periods exclude intolerant and nonadherent patients, foster spuriously large treatment effects, and (most troubling) create inclusion criteria that are irreproducible — i.e., that apply to no population we can clearly describe, as reasons for dropout are multifaceted and unique.

Even more concerning is that drug run-in periods test a different question than the one we think we are testing. In PARADIGM-HF, the run-in tested whether sticking with LCZ696 or switching to enalapril is better for HF patients who have taken and tolerated enalapril followed by LCZ696. It effectively turns the trial into a withdrawal study. If stopping LCZ696 is harmful, that counts against enalapril.

Dr Packer's Response: Appeals to Common Practice 

Dr Packer's main argument in defense of the run-in period involved yet another logical fallacy, the appeal to common practice, for example,
  

Dr. Prasad seem ill-informed here. Drug run-in periods are not a controversial study-design choice. In fact, this type of design is strongly preferred because it closely mimics clinical practice.

Again,

I wish I understood Dr. Prasad’s arguments against run-in periods. We have used them in many heart failure trials, and it was used in the SOLVD Treatment Trial,...

Dr Prasad ultimately responded so as to underline the essence of the fallacy,

The fact that many (and often industry sponsored) studies use drug run in periods is not a justification for their use. 

Summary

The recently published paper reporting the results of PARADIGM - HF has already generated considerable media hype (and an uncritical editorial) proclaiming valsartan - sacubitril as a new wonder drug for congestive heart failure.  While the trial was not without good features, several critics, including Dr Vinay Prasad and yours truly, suggested the study had multiple problems which make its results difficult to interpret.  The Principal Investigator of the study, Dr Milton Packer, chose to publicly defend his trial, yet so far his defense seems built more on logical fallacies than on logic and evidence.  After he published his remarks in defense of the trial, the hype seems no more justified than it did before.

Not only was PARADIGM - HF sponsored by Novartis, but many of its investigators had ties to Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies.  Dr Packer should be applauded for disclosing clearly the number of companies with whom he works in his dialogue with Dr Prasad.

Competing interests: Personal fees from AMAG, Amgen, BioControl, CardioKinetix, CardioMEMS, Cardiorentis, Daiichi, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi.

However, not only is it likely that financial relationships with commercial health care firms influence health care professionals to be more favorably disposed to these firms' products, but also such conflicts of interest may cause conflicted, and hence confused thinking.  As  I have noted before, Dr Joe Collier said, "people who have conflicts of interest often find giving clear advice (or opinions) particularly difficult."  [Collier J. The price of independence. Br Med J 2006; 332: 1447-9. Link here.]  

This all adds to the argument that society needs to reconsider its delegation of the responsibility for much clinical research to the companies that make the drugs, devices, and other goods and services used in health care.  The temptation for them to manipulate the results to improve their marketing is too great.  The temptation for the health care professionals involved to go along to get along with the rich sponsors is too great.  It may be less profitable for some individuals, but it would be much better for patients' and the public's health if research involving people, particularly experiments (clinical trials) involving patients, were directly funded by, and designed, implemented, and analyzed by people without vested interests in the results turning out in favor of particular commercially produced goods or services. 

Sacubitril - Valsartan, a "New Threshold of Hope" or Hype for Heart Failure?

Summer must be over, because the next new blockbuster drug appears to be here.  At the end of August, the media heralded the results of a study of a new product for congestive heart failure (CHF) from Novartis.

Novartis' New "Game Changer"

The New York Times article was fairly restrained, simply saying it

has shown a striking efficacy in prolonging the lives of people with heart failure

The Reuters article's headline said

New Novartis drug may upend heart failure treatment

In Forbes, Matthew Herper called it a

Game Changer

The accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (1) suggested the drug

may well represent a new threshold of hope for patients with heart failure

On the heels of the debate about the high price of Sovaldi, Gilead's drug similarly touted as a game changer for the also common disease, hepatitis C (look here), almost immediately the concerns about cost followed.  Another Reuters article quoted the past president of the European Society of Cardiology,

We are entering a new era of treatment and, of course, it will cost a lot of money, which is a problem

This blog was late to the party for Sovaldi, and did not get to examine the evidence used to support its ostensibly wondrous properties until a while after it was published, and after the drug was approved.  Therefore, I thought we should examine the new evidence about Novartis' new drug now, before the drug is reviewed for marketing approval.

Congestive Heart Failure

First, let me give a very informal review of congestive heart failure (CHF).  CHF is a syndrome that is the final common pathway for many patients with heart disease.  It can be commonly caused by prolonged hypertension, coronary artery disease (often after one or more myocardial infarctions, or heart attacks), cardiac valve disease, or various problems with the heart muscle (cardiomyopathies).  In CHF, the heart cannot pump sufficiently to meet the body's needs.  The body responds in various ways, not all advantageous.  There are two main types of heart failure.  In one, systolic dysfunction, the heart's pump function, measured by its ejection fraction, is directly reduced.  In the other, sometimes called diastolic dysfunction, the heart becomes stiff, and hence it may not fill with blood adequately.  In either case, a common response is accumulation of fluid.  Fluid can accumulate in the lungs, causing breathlessness.  CHF patients often are fatigued, breathless, find it hard to do physical activity, and may have swelling of the legs or abdomen (edema).

Starting more than 20 years ago, a series of landmark clinical trials found that various types of medication could be used to modify the often disadvantageous compensatory mechanisms evoked by CHF with systolic dysfunction.  Controlled trials showed these medications could reduce symptoms, reduce hospitalizations, and prolong life.  These medications included those that affected the renin-angiotensin system, used by the body to control blood flow and pressure, including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).  Also found to be efficacious were beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid blockers. At this point, all these medications are available in cheap, generic form in the US.

Review of the New Study of Sacubitril and Neprilysin Inhibtion

So let us examine the article just published online that reports a trial of Novartis' new drug.(2)

The new Novartis medication is sacubitril, which inhibits an enzyme called neprilysin, which degrades various active compounds in the body.  Inhibition of the enzyme and the resultant increase in the level of these compounds seems to favorably affect the disadvantageous compensation mechanisms found in CHF.

A previous effort to develop a neprilysin inhibitor found that it produced an unacceptable risk of a serious side-effect, angioedema, when combined with an ACE inhibitor.  So the current study involved another neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril, combined with a angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, sold by Novartis under the trade name Diovan.

The trial had many good features.  It was large, including 8442 patients randomized.  It followed patients for longer than the short-term, a median of 27 months.  Most importantly, it assessed real clinical outcomes that might be important to patients (that is, "patient-centered outcomes,") including death, acute hospitalization, and a measure of health status and physical function, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).  

So far, so good.  However, a close read revealed some major and some minor problems.
  
Low Dose of Comparator 

This is a bit complex so bear with me.  

The study assessed a combination of sacubitril and valsartan versus a well-known ACE inhibitor, enalapril.  The target dose of the sacubitril and valsartan, rather confusingly called LCZ696, was 160 mg of valsartan twice daily, for a total of 320 mg/ day of valsartan.  The target dose of enalapril was 10 mg twice daily, for a total of 20 mg.

Note that both ACEIs like enalapril and ARBs like valsartan are considered appropriate first line treatment of CHF with systolic dysfunction.  In the most recent ACCF/ AHA guideline for heart failure, the maximum suggested dose of enalapril is 10-20 mg twice a day, and of valsartan, 160 mg twice a day.  Previous studies have suggested that pushing these doses as high as patients can tolerate improves outcomes.  

So the current study compared a targeted maximum dose of valsartan (plus sacubitril) to a less than maximum dose of enalapril.  The article did not explain why the study did not call for a maximum dose of enalapril, or indeed why valsartan plus sacubitril was not compared to valsartan alone. 

Thus the advantages of valsartan plus sacubitril found in the study could be entirely due to the superiority of maximum doses of valsartan versus moderate doses of enalapril.  I do not believe the study design can allow conclusions to be drawn about the efficacy of sacubitril.

 Note that this problem was noted in an online comment on the article by Dr Martin Nitschke.   

Choosing to compare the new drug to a less than maximally efficacious dose of the comparator medicine could make the new drug appear to be more efficacious than it actually is.  This apparent major design problem has been listed as one of the ways commercially sponsored studies may be manipulated to make the sponsors' products appear better.  The particular tactic of conducting a trial "against a treatment known to be inferior" was listed in a 2005 article on clinical research manipulation by Richard Smith.(3)


Active Run-In Period

Before patients were enrolled in the trial, they went through two "run-in" periods.  In the first, they were switched from their previous doses of ACEIs or ARBs to enalapril, up to 10 mg twice daily.  Patients unable to tolerate this were not randomized.  

Then the patients were switched from enalapril to valsartan 160 mg plus sacubitril up to .  Again, if they failed to tolerate this, they were also not randomized.  

The article noted that substantial patients were disqualified during these active run-in periods.  During the enalapril period, of 10,513 patients, 1102 were dropped from the study, including 591 (5.6%) due to an adverse effect, 66 (0.6%) due to an abnormal test results, and 49 (0.5%) who died.  During the valsartan plus sacubitril period, of 9419 patients, 977 were dropped, including 547 (5.8%) for adverse effects, 58 (0.6%) for abnormal test results, and 47 (0.5%) who died.  

There are major problems with such active run-in periods.  First, by eliminating patients who had adverse effects from the main results, they make the adverse effect rate appear smaller.  

Second, they raise questions about the patient population to whom the study results apply.  The study results only clearly apply to patients who are known to be able to tolerate valsartan and sacubitril.  In practice, should the drug be approved, at that time the only such patients would be those who already participated in trials.  (Of course, the results only apply to patients known to be able to tolerate enalapril.  This drug, however, has been on the market for years, and is widely used for problems, like hypertension, other than CHF.  So there are already quite a few patients known to tolerate it.)

The problems with interpreting studies that included active run-in periods were clearly described in an article by Pablos-Mendez et al in 1998.(4) 

Failure to Consider Adverse Effects Specific to Sacubitril

Valsartan and enalapril are now old drugs.  Their adverse effects are well known.

Sacubitril is a new drug in a new class.  It inhibits an enzyme that in turn affects the metabolism of many substances.  Thus, it is possible it has widespread effects, and may have multiple, and possibly unusual side-effects.

Yet the current study did not apparently include any efforts to anticipate and attempt to assess such side effects.  This problem was pointed out in a comment by Dr Ivan Boyadzhiev.

Failure to consider specific adverse effects may mean these effects are overlooked.  Thus, it is possible that the new drug has adverse effects that go beyond what are addressed in the article. 

Large Numbers of Sites and Quality Control

The study was done in 1043 centers in 47 countries.  The list of investigators took up six pages of the supplementary documentation.  Thus the average number of patients recruited per center was less than nine.

It seems improbable that a study involving so many investigators and centers, most of whom must have devoted little of their time and effort to this particular study, would have adequate quality control.  One indicator that quality control may have been a problem was that although the study inclusion criteria included patients with class II-IV heart failure, about 5% of study patients had class I heart failure.

The article and the supplementary material did not discuss study coordination or quality control.  It is not possible to tell whether any such problems with quality control may have distorted the study's results.

Lack of Generalizability in the Patient Population

The complete list of exclusion criteria, only appearing in the supplementary material, was extensive.  Patients with many common problems were supposed to be excluded, and the definition of the some exclusion criteria were vague and subjective.  These problems included coronary or carotid artery disease "likely to require" surgical or percutaneous intervention within 6 months, "history of severe pulmonary disease," "any surgical or medical condition which might significantly alter the absorption, distribution, metabolism or excretion of study drugs," including inflammatory bowel disease, duodenal or gastric ulcers, evidence of liver disease, and "presence of any other disease with a life expectancy of less than 5  years."

CHF patients are commonly elderly and have other medical problems.  Thus the study's results may not generalize to many patients with CHF in real-life. 

 Summary

It would certainly be nice to have a new medicine to improve the management of chronic CHF.  Sacubitril may have promise to do so.  Unfortunately, the clinical trial that just generated much favorable publicity ahead of regulatory consideration of this drug had major, possibly fatal flaws.  Use of a probably non-comparable and inferior "comparator" medication made it impossible to tell whether sacubitril actually is efficacious.  Use of an active run-in period, and failure to consider whether this new drug may have unexpected side-effects made it likely that the study underestimated its adverse effects.  Study results may not generalize to many real-life patients.  There are reasons to be concerned about whether the quality of study implementation was adequate.

Therefore, all the enthusiasm about this drug may be premature, and does not appear to be evidence-based.  That clinical research sponsored by organizations that sell health care goods and services may be manipulated to make the sponsors' products look better than they really are is now an old story.  We have seen multiple instances in which drugs and devices turned out to be less efficacious and/or more dangerous than originally advertised.  Excess enthusiasm about such new innovations may drive up costs, and worse, hurt patients.  Physicians, other health care professionals, and those concerned about health policy ought to be much more skeptical about every new instance of a purportedly wondrous innovation. 

 Evidence-based medicine rigorously applied suggests that individual health care and health policy decisions should be driven by the best available evidence, mostly from clinical research, about the benefits and harms of tests, treatments, programs, and so on, in the context of what outcomes matter to patients.  The skepticism EBM should engender lead to health care that is more about patients and their outcomes, and less about ideology, hype, and hucksterism.

ADDENDUM (3 September, 2014) - See also post by Dr Vinay Prasad on the CardioExchange site.  He drew similar conclusions about the choice of comparator, and the active run-in period, and added a new concern about the early stopping of the trial.  The comments include a - ahem - vigorous exchange between Dr Prasad and Dr Milton Packer, the Principal Investigator of the trial.  IMHO, Dr Packer did not completely understand or appreciate the points made by Dr Prasad.  Also, see our later blog post on this exchange here.

ADDENDUM (9 September, 2014) - See also a post by Gary Schwitzer on the HealthNewsReview.org blog that summarizes other critical online comments about the PARADIGM - HF study.  In particular, Dr Richard Lehman on his Journal Review blog on the British Medical Journal website wrote this scathing paragraph:

 And now, alas, to the much-vaunted PARADIGM-HF trial. This has been hyped as the biggest breakthrough in heart failure for at least 20 years.  A fixed dose of enalapril was compared with a substance called LCZ696. This turns out to have been a mixture of valsartan and sacubitril, a neutral endopeptidase inhibitor, and most participants ended up receiving a daily dose of 320mg of valsartan, versus 20mg of enalapril. A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died after a median follow-up of 27 months, at which point the trial was stopped prematurely. So just what are we looking at here? How can we distinguish the effect of the sacubitril from the effect of the high dose of valsartan? Well, we can’t. And this trial is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with heart failure trials. The mean age of the 8442 patients was 63.8, nearly  80% were male, and they were selected by reduced ejection fraction in 1043 centres across 47 countries. A logistic nightmare, but a great way for Novartis to spread influence. And Novartis then collected, managed and analyzed all the data itself. As I have said, a submaximal dose of one drug was compared with a maximal dose of another plus an extra ingredient. There was a run-in period, in which patients who were intolerant to the new treatment (12%) dropped out. Adding bias to bias, the trial was terminated prematurely. One of the primary end-points was hospitalization, which was ably demolished in a JAMA article I pointed out last week. And yes, there was a mortality benefit, but the number-needed-to-treat was about 35 to prevent one death in 2 and half years, in a population far removed from the elderly co-morbid patients we see in real life. As I draw to the end of a clinical career in which I’ve tried to help people with heart failure, I stand bemused. This is just how things have been done for the last 30 years, and it’s not good enough. At the very least, Novartis must make its full data set available for independent analysis. And before sacubitril is licensed, we need a properly designed trial, say between valsartan 160mg b.d. alone and valsartan plus sacubitril, in a typical population with heart failure. It will be very interesting to see what the FDA, the EMA and NICE decide.

 
References
1.  Jessup M. Neprilysin inhibition - a novel therapy for heart failure.  N Engl J Med 2014;  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1409898.  Link here.
2.  McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS et al.  Angiotensin - neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.  N Engl J Med 2014; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409077  Link here.
3.  Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of them marketing arms of pharmaceutical companies.  PLoS Medicine 2005;  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138.  Link here.
4.  Pablos-Mendez A, Barr G, Shea S. Run-in periods in randomized trials: implications for the application of results in clinical practice.  JAMA 1998;  279(3): 222-225. doi:10.1001/jama.279.3.222.  Link here.

Turnabout is Fair Play - Why University of Illinois Students, Faculty and Alumni Should Question the Dean of Medicine about Novartis' Ethical Misadventures

Since 2006, we have posted repeatedly about  what was then a new species of severe conflicts of interest.  This occurred when leaders of academic medical institutions or other health care non-profit organizations or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also serve as members of boards of directors of for-profit corporations  whose products and actions have major effects on health care.

Most recently, we discussed the cases of the current CEO of the National Quality Forum and past CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine who was found to be on the board of for-profit hospital group purchasing organization Premier Inc, and had been on the board of its privately held but for-profit predecessors.  We also discussed the case of the incoming president of the US Institute of Medicine and former Chancellor of Health Affairs at Duke University who was on the boards of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic and Pepsico.

We also recently posted about the first time these sorts of severe conflicts of interest issue have been addressed in a large circulation medical journal.  A commentary in JAMA called for many such conflicts to be banned.

The JAMA article, and much of the discussion surrounding the NQF and IOM cases focused on how loyalties to outside for-profit corporations could affect leaders of academic and other non-profit organizations.  However, we also noted (e.g., here and here) how company directors should be accountable for the actions of their companies, even if they also happen to also be academic or non-profit leaders. 

Thus, academic and non-profit leaders may find themselves in the awkward position of being held accountable for unethical or even illegal actions of the companies on whose boards they sit.  Such corporate actions may contradict the mission of the institutions whose leadership is their primary job, and whose mission they are supposed to uphold. 

While we were writing about these somewhat convoluted, but very important issues, a fellow blogger discovered yet another academic leader serving on the board of a health care corporation, while simultaneously the media reported multiple examples of that corporation's ethical misadventures on his watch.  Those who care about that academic institution ought to question whether a leader accountable for such misadventures is fit to continue to lead.  Yet so far, no one has publicly juxtaposed this leaders' responsibilities to his institution's mission and how the corporation over which he is supposed to exercise stewardship has been taking actions that contradict that mission

The Dean of the College of Medicine at the University of Illinois Is a Director of Novartis

Paul Levy, blogging on Not Running a Hospital, noted a print advertisement for the Intuitive Surgical daVinci robot.  The advertisement implied endorsements by academic surgeons at the University of Illinois.  Levy suggested that surgical faculty acting as salespeople for a device company appeared to violate the university code of conduct.  This concern was heightened by the status of several of the surgeons in the advertisement as clinical and academic leaders.    

Mr Levy then discovered that the Dr Dimitri Azar, Dean of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, to whom these surgeon report, was on the board of Novartis, the multinational pharmaceutical and device company.  Dr Azar's position is easily verified by consulting the Novartis web-site.  Mr Levy further discussed the case here and here.  Then he  reviewed  the extensive dealings between the University of Illinois and Novartis and its subsidiaries, raising suspicion that the Dean's known involvement with the company may have lead to its favorable treatment by the university.

But wait, there is another major dimension to this problem. 

Novartis' Recent Ethical Misadventures

Novartis, over which Dr Azar is supposed to be exerting stewardship, has made a series of ethical missteps according to recent media reports.  I will summarize them in chronological order according to the date of media publication.

Novartis, Roche Fined for Anti-Competitive and Deceptive Practices in Italy to Encourage Sales of Lucentis

According to a March 5, 2014 article in the New York Times, Novartis was fined for anti-competitive and deceptive practices, 

Italian antitrust authorities said on Wednesday that they had fined two Swiss pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and Roche Holdings, a total of $250 million for colluding to keep doctors from prescribing a relatively inexpensive eye treatment in favor of a more expensive drug.

The authorities said the two companies had sought to steer doctors away from Avastin, an anticancer drug developed by Genentech that has been used for years as an off-label treatment for common eye problems. Instead, they said, the companies had tried to 'channel demand toward the much more expensive drug Lucentis, through an artificial distinction between the two products,' essentially by overstating the dangers of Avastin use.

It is not the first time such substitution efforts have brought an unwanted spotlight: Genentech got into trouble in the United States in 2010, when it was found to be offering doctors secret rebates to prescribe Lucentis over Avastin.

Novartis, which holds the rights to market the two drugs outside the United States, has been fined 92 million euros by the Italian regulators. And Roche, which acquired Genentech in 2009, was fined 90.5 million euros, for a total of about $250 million in the Italian case. 

Given that many drug companies have been cited for marketing their products for unapproved, or off-label uses, it is ironic that in this case, Novartis managers said they were shocked, shocked by the ruling because it could encourage off-label use:

 Novartis said in a statement that the Italian decision 'openly encourages and promotes the widespread unlicensed intravitreal use of Avastin contrary to the requirements of European and Italian regulatory law,' and 'undermines the European regulatory framework designed to protect patient safety.'

The NY Times also reported that one method the two companies were alleged to use to encourage Lucentis rather than Avastin use was to launder their message through patient advocacy groups,

The Italian authorities discovered numerous messages between Roche and Novartis in which the two companies discussed what kinds of communications would be needed to induce doctors and hospitals to adopt the more expensive product.

According to one such message from early 2013, cited in documents in the case released Wednesday, growing cost pressure in Italy and France to use Avastin had 'reinforced the political dimension of the debate,' and 'further reinforcement of the Lucentis value proposition to all stakeholders is critical.'

Another message called for the companies to 'work with diabetes patient groups to increase voiced concerns about safety risks of unlicensed therapies' — a reference to Avastin — for an eye condition known as diabetic macular edema.

Novartis Paid Doctors to Act as Marketers for Starlix and Other Drug

After the New York state attorney general filed suit against Novartis, a March 15, 2014 Newsday article included interviews with physicians that suggested how the company turned them into disguised marketers:

Dr. Howard Brand says he had one goal when he gave a speech at a Miami hotel in the early 2000s -- to tout the diabetes pill Starlix for the pharmaceutical company Novartis. 

The giant Swiss drugmaker, which reported $57.9 billion in global sales in 2013, paid the Stony Brook endocrinologist $1,500 for his talk at a doctors' meeting, Brand said in an interview. Novartis also paid for Brand's airfare and his weekend hotel stay, he said.

'It was self-serving, but I also thought it was a benefit to patients,' said Brand,...

Furthermore,

 Brand, the Miami speaker, said in an interview that investigators had not approached him about the payments he accepted.

He said Novartis paid him a total of $10,000 to $12,000 for speeches, mostly at restaurant dinners it sponsored. The payments, which Brand said he received before 2010, are not reflected on the Novartis website.
'
Even [with] the notion that we were paid solicitors, I think people really paid attention,' he said. 'Of course, a lot of doctors just enjoyed going to dinner.'

Brand said he accepted more than $60,000 in speaker's fees from drugmakers, including Novartis, in one two-year period.

Another physician allowed that Novartis furnished the material for his "educational" talks,

Dr. Howard Hertz, a Babylon internist, confirmed that he had received $4,000 from Novartis in 2010 and 2011 for talking about its hypertension drugs to colleagues. Hertz said he dealt with a Novartis sales rep who brought information about the company's pills to his office. 'He would educate me about the product, give me slides to study,' he said.

Hertz said the slides were on CDs and made him an expert on Novartis drugs such as Diovan, a blood pressure pill, Lotrel and Valturna. He said he spoke mostly about Diovan and Lotrel.

'We had dinners whereby I would speak about the products and speak to the colleagues,' Hertz said. 'I became somewhat of an expert in these products.'

Note that Dr Hertz's expertise seemed to come exclusively from information provided by a company salesperson, making it obvious that he was not hired for his prior expertise as a physician.

The prosecutors allege that Novartis' payments of some $65 million amounted to illegal kickbacks.  This is only an allegation.  However, it seems obvious that Novartis paid physicians to act as salespeople.  Newsday asked bioethicist Arthur Caplan about these actions,

'To even hear about it just takes my breath away,' Caplan said. 'It sounds like egregious, inexcusable violations of agreed upon legal and ethical standards . . . with an inexcusably complicit group of physicians,' Caplan said.

Japanese Hospital Investigation Alleged Novartis Manipulated Research

A March 17, 2014 article in FiercePharma stated that Japanese investigators found that Novartis had manipulated clinical research to make its results appear more favorable to the company's products,

Novartis employees were more involved in a Japanese drug study than previously suspected, a Tokyo hospital official said. In an investigative report released last week, the University of Tokyo Hospital said doctors not only let Novartis  employees collect patient data from various trial sites but also allowed the Swiss drugmaker into its records on all 255 trial participants, Japanese media reports.

Plus, at least one Novartis employee was involved in planning the trial, designed to compare side effects of multiple leukemia treatments, the hospital found, according to Japan's Mainichi news. Those treatments included Tasigna, the company's follow-up to the hugely successful Gleevec (imatinib).

In fact, according to NHK World, hospital director Takashi Kadowaki said Friday that Novartis employees were 'virtually managing the study.' 

According to Mainichi, this sort of clinical research manipulation is taken very seriously in Japan,

 Senior Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare officials called the case a serious situation and said the researchers involved showed a lack of ethics. They called for a detailed investigative report from the hospital and are considering punitive measures. The ministry will consider a new law to prevent corruption in clinical tests in the wake of a scandal involving the clinical trial of antihypertensive drug Valsartan.

It is obvious this story is not from the US, because the drug company has already apologized,

 A representative for Novartis Pharma's PR division said, 'We want to apologize to patients and doctors. We must refrain from comment on the investigation, which is being handled outside our company.'

Indian Regulator Cancels Import License Alleging Fraud by Novartis to Market Veterinary Drug

A March 18, 2014 article in the New Delhi Business Standard told how Indian regulators accused Novartis of fraud, opening with,

Swiss drug maker Novaris is likely to face legal action for allegedly faking documents to seek registration of its veterinary product Tiamulin Hydrogen Fumarate (80 per cent granules) in India. The drug regulator, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI)), has already cancelled the company’s import licences as well as existing registration certificate for the product.

Summary

So in just the last few weeks, evidence appeared that Novartis engaged in collusive anti-competitive and deceptive practices marketing drugs in Italy, paid physicians to act as marketers in the US, manipulated drug studies in Japan, and lost an import license in India due to alleged fraud.  By the way, in 2013, Novartis was fined for anti-competitive practices in its marketing of Fentanyl by the European Commission (look here), and in 2011 its Sandoz subsidiary settled allegations of misreporting prices in the US for $150 million (look here)   Other Novartis misadventures from 2010 and earlier appear here.  So Novartis has quite an impressive, if not infamous record of ethical failures.

While he is Dean of medicine at the University of Illinois, Dr Dimitri Azar is also a director of Novartis, and hence has a fiduciary duty for the company's stewarship.  While questioning Dr Azar's role in the participation of his faculty in advertising for Intuitive Surgical, perhaps those who care about the reputation of the University of Illinois and its ability to fulfill its mission ought to ask how the poor ethical track record of the company Dr Azar is supposed to be overseeing reflects on his ability to defend the mission of the university and the medical school.

While parties that enable or enter into arrangements that create conflicts of interest in health care may be thinking mainly of the advantages that they may accrue, many of these arrangements create accountability and obligations, even if they are honored mainly in the breach.  If leaders of academic medicine and health care non-profit organizations insist on becoming directors, and hence stewards of for-profit health care corporations, they ought to be held accountable for the actions of these corporations, and how these actions reflect on their primary obligations to the academic and non-profit organizations they have also pledged to serve.

True health care reform would make health care leaders accountable for putting patients' and the public's health ahead of their own self-interest.

The Camel's Aching Back - Johnson and Johnson and Novartis Fined 16 Million Euro for "Anticompetitive" Scheme to Delay Generic Fentanyl

Legal and regulatory actions unfavorable for giant pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device company Johnson and Johnson just keep coming.  We last discussed such a story only two weeks ago here. 

The Latest Case

This latest story got only desultory US coverage from the wire services.  The most complete version is in the European Commission press release. 

The basics were:

The European Commission has imposed fines of € 10 798 000 on the US pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and € 5 493 000 on Novartis of Switzerland. In July 2005, their respective Dutch subsidiaries concluded an anticompetitive agreement to delay the market entry of a cheaper generic version of the pain-killer fentanyl in the Netherlands, in breach of EU antitrust rules.

In more detail,

J&J initially developed Fentanyl and has commercialised it in different formats since the 1960s. In 2005, J&J's protection on the fentanyl depot patch had expired in the Netherlands and Novartis' Dutch subsidiary, Sandoz, was on the verge of launching its generic fentanyl depot patch. It had already produced the necessary packaging material. 

However, in July 2005, instead of actually starting to sell the generic version, Sandoz concluded a so-called 'co-promotion agreement' with Janssen-Cilag, J&J's Dutch subsidiary. The agreement provided strong incentives for Sandoz not to enter the market. Indeed, the agreed monthly payments exceeded the profits that Sandoz expected to obtain from selling its generic product, for as long as there was no generic entry. Consequently, Sandoz did not offer its product on the market. The agreement was stopped in December 2006 when a third party was about to launch a generic fentanyl patch.

The agreement therefore delayed the entry of a cheaper generic medicine for seventeen months and kept prices for fentanyl in the Netherlands artificially high - to the detriment of patients and taxpayers who finance the Dutch health system.

The obligatory colorful bits,

 Why did J&J and Novartis conclude that agreement? According to internal documents Sandoz would abstain from entering the Dutch market in exchange for 'a part of [the] cake'. Instead of competing, Janssen-Cilag and Sandoz agreed on cooperation so as 'not to have a depot generic on the market and in that way to keep the high current price'. Janssen-Cilag did not consider any other existing potential partners for the so-called 'co-promotion agreement' but just focused on its close competitor Sandoz. Sandoz engaged in very limited or no actual co-promotion activities.

So, 

 The Commission therefore concluded that the object of this agreement was anticompetitive and infringed Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Johnson and Johnson's Ever Lengthening Unhappy Legal History

There have been so many settlements made by, fines assessed against, and other adverse legal actions affecting Johnson and Johnson in the recent past that we must make a major revision of our summary of such cases (see same appended at the end of this post.)

Yet despite all these actions, there is no hint that anything will change at the company.  After all, it is extremely profitable, and all the fines, while they individually appear large, are not a big fraction of the money it brings in.  And, as we have noted far too often, not one of these actions actually provides any negative consequences, much less severely punishes anyone at the company who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  

Instead, the leadership of the company continues to make itself very rich. As we wrote here,  Mr William Weldon, the outgoing CEO on whose watch most of the misbehavior resulting in the legal actions listed in the appendix below occurred, retired with a huge retirement package, after receiving extremely generous compensation prior to that.  The new CEO as of April, 2012,  Mr  Alex Gorsky, per the company's 2013 proxy statement, already owns more than 190,000 Johnson and Johnson shares,  and received $10,977,109  total compensation in 2012.  Mr Weldon received over $29 million in total compensation just for 2012, the year in which he retired.  Other top executives received from over $3.5 million to over $8 million. One can only imagine how much top executives are making this year.

So Johnson and Johnson, once admired for proclaiming in its famous credo to "put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first," now seems to put its own hired managers first.  It boggles the mind that despite this amazing record of bad behavior, the executives who presided over it still have jobs, have made no obvious changes in how they manage the company, and in fact continue to get ridiculously rich.  The board of directors, which includes the President of the University of Michigan, a Professor and Emeritus Chancellor and Vice President of Health Affairs at Emory, a Professor at MIT, a former FDA Commissioner, and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences, Dean of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); Chief Executive Officer of the UCLA Health System, who seemingly ought to care about the integrity of evidence, protecting patients from harm, and the need for simple honesty, have not obviously done anything about the apparent massive violation of the company credo that has made its managers wealth.   Other than the stockholder lawsuit discussed below, the supposed owners of the company seem to be mute.

When will the straws break the camel's back?  In the absence of such a fracture, I repeat like an old, broken record... 

Many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

Again, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Appendix - Johnson and Johnson Recent Legal Record

2010

- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
2011

- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)
- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
2012

- In 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  Also in 2012,  Johnson & Johnson was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  Also in 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post). 

2013

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson settled case by shareholders alleging that management made misleading statements and withheld material information about manufacturing problems (see this post)

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Janssen subsidiary pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding Risperdal, and settled for a total of $2.2 billion allegations that it promoted the drug for elderly demented patients and adolescents without an indication, and despite evidence of its harms (see this post). 

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson DePuy subsidiary agreed to settle with multiple plaintiffs for $2.5 billion allegations that it sold defective mental-on-metal artificial hip, and hid evidence of its harms .

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnsonn Janssen subsidiary was found by two juries to have concealed harms of its drug Topamax (see this post for this and above case).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Ethicon subsidiary's Advanced Surgical Products and two of its executives agreed to settle charges by US FDA that is sold mislabeled products used to sterilize equipment such as endoscopes (see this post).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson fined by European Commission for anticompetitive practices, that is, collusion with Novartis to delay marketing generic version of Fentanyl (in the current post above). 

More Cause for Hope - After Novartis Chairman's Rescinded Golden Parachute, Swiss Voters Give Control of Hired Executives' Salaries Back to Owners

Recently, we discussed the latest stupefyingly big golden parachute given to a departing pharmaceutical executive.  Former Novartis CEO and outgoing chairman Daniel Vasella was to be given more than $75 million, after making multiple millions previously, ostensibly so he would not go to work for a competitor.  After a public outcry, the company cancelled the plan, and Vasella admitted a "mistake."  This was the only instance in recent memory in which a big health care organization pulled back some huge executive pay package due to public protest.

Swiss Voters Give Control of Pay of Hired Executives Back to Company Owners

Now Swiss voters have approved a referendum which would actually let the owners of public companies, the stockholders, decide how much to pay hired executives.  As summarized by the New York Times,

Swiss citizens voted Sunday to impose some of the world’s most severe restrictions on executive compensation, ignoring a warning from the business lobby that such curbs would undermine the country’s investor-friendly image.

 The vote gives shareholders of companies listed in Switzerland a binding say on the overall pay packages for executives and directors. Pension funds holding shares in a company would be obligated to take part in votes on compensation packages.

In addition, companies would no longer be allowed to give bonuses to executives joining or leaving the business, or to executives when their company was taken over. Violations could result in fines equal to up to six years of salary and a prison sentence of up to three years. 

The new rules in Switzerland would be unprecedented in the current era.  

Those who are Ostensibly Pro-Business Defend Hired Executives, not Owners

Despite the fact that the new rules would give control over one type of hired employees, hired executives, back to the shareholders, the owners of companies, spokespeople for big companies, but presumably really for their top executives, claimed that the rule would be bad for shareholders.

 

Ahead of the vote, [the Swiss business federation] EconomieSuisse and Mr. Minder’s other opponents warned of dire consequences if the referendum passed, notably in terms of keeping Switzerland attractive to foreign companies and investors. 

But [chief proponent of the new rules] Mr. Minder argued that Switzerland would benefit if it gave shareholders control over the companies in which they invested.

Furthermore, the Guardian reported, 

Minder says the massive sums demonstrate that company boards have lost control of pay and prefer to fork out 'astronomical' salaries rather than pay dividends to shareholders.

Minder told the Swiss daily Le Temps that the only solution was to give shareholders the power to set pay.

 A Bloomberg article suggested that driving the vote were how the Swiss are

 worried about how long they can fend off the crisis that has engulfed the rest of Europe, and dissatisfied with a feeling of being ripped off by their elites.

'It is scandalous. No one deserves to be paid such monstrously high salaries, especially when their employees get paid not much in comparison,' Marianne Lecoultre, a pensioner who lives in a modest flat on the outskirts of Geneva, told me. 

The Germans are Thinking of Making Hired Executives More Accountable

The German media outlet Deutsche Welle reported that there is now more interest in returning control of hired executive pay to company owners there as well.

 After Swiss citizens voted Sunday to impose controls on executive pay, a similar debate has started in Germany. 

Furthermore,

Joachim Poß, the parliamentary leader of the opposition Social Democratic Party, told the daily Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung that the outcome of the referendum was an important step towards restricting the money-grabbing prevalent in corporate management,

He noted that the referendum was encouragement for an initiative at the EU level, and added that 'people do no longer accept perverted bonus systems, neither in banks nor in the real economy.'

Summary: Ripped Off by Health Care Elites

I can start to imagine how supposedly pro-business people in the US will dismiss actions taken by European countries as anti-business and probably "job killing," even though these actions actually gave more control of publicly held business to their owners, not to government, which would seem to be fully in support of capitalism.  Again, maybe some people making the loudest pro-business noises are really sympathetic to, if not paid by, the hired managers of businesses who have put their enrichment ahead of the interests of other employees, customers, clients or patients, the business owners (stockholders, that is), and the public at large. 

Enormous compensation of hired health care executives, out of all proportion, if related at all to whether their work had any positive effect on patients' or the public's health, has long been a concern on Health Care Renewal.  For example, back in 2006, we posted repeatedly (look here for links) about the billion dollar plus fortune amassed by the then CEO of UnitedHealthcare which vividly contrasted with the company's avowal to "make health care more affordable."  That seemed to be an example back then of a rip off by a member of the health care elite.  Now the notion that our top elites have been generally ripping us off is becoming more widespread.

In my humble opinion, the perverse incentives generated by a system that allows top executives to make almost unlimited amounts, regardless of all other considerations, has been a major reason for US and global health care dysfunction.  Making executive compensation less perverse, and ultimately making health care leaders accountable for the effects of what they do on patients' and the public's health may be an absolutely necessary step to make our health care system more functional.  Now at least there is some precedent, admittedly from Europe, for making top hired managers more accountable. 


As Pierre Briancon wrote in Reuters,

 Corporate boards had better take notice: public outrage at what looks like persistent and unapologetic greed in the most severe economic slump in decades is forcing governments to step in. Throughout Europe, indignation at private excess has become a policy problem for administrations trying to explain the need to cut public spending.

In addition,

Self-moderation doesn’t work and self-interest continues to prevail. Throughout the Western world, corporate boards have paid lip service to the need to take into account public opinion, and nothing much has changed either in the banking industry – the symbol of immoderation – or in the wider corporate world. In desperation, governments are taking more forceful action – sometimes reluctantly: the Swiss referendum followed a failure by the country’s parliament to heed to public indignation.

Government intervention can often be clumsy, and it is fraught with the risk of unintended consequences. But it is the right of governments to legislate on social ills – and excessive and provocative private-sector pay has become one. Meanwhile the lobbies promising economic apocalypse have failed to make their case – and to scare anyone with warnings that 'talent' – as they call it – may relocate to friendlier countries. It would be in the interest of all if they stopped turning a deaf ear to calls for decency emanating even from countries like Switzerland, which is hardly a hotbed of Soviet-style command economics.

Even though the final impetus for the overwhelming majority vote on the Swiss referendum came from a ridiculous golden parachute from a pharmaceutical company, the discussion so far has not centered on health care.  So I get to close with something I have repeated on and on, now with a little hope that it may not be considered so extreme....

 Health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

Reason for Hope? - Novartis Rescinds Vasella's Golden Parachute

Enormous compensation of hired health care executives, out of all proportion, if related at all to whether their work had any positive effect on patients' or the public's health, has long been a concern on Health Care Renewal.  For example, back in 2006, we posted repeatedly (look here for links) about the billion dollar plus fortune amassed by the then CEO of UnitedHealthcare which vividly contrasted with the company's avowal to "make health care more affordable."

We have posted many such stories.  Yet maybe there is a whiff of change in the air.  For the first time that I can recall, a gigantic pay package to a top health care executives has been rescinded after public protest.

Novartis' Golden Parachute for Vasella

This is how the New York Times described the huge golden parachute that was initially proposed:

A plan by Novartis, one of Switzerland’s biggest drug makers, to pay its departing chairman $78 million to keep him from sharing his knowledge with competitors has added fuel to an already heated debate about executive pay.

The announcement of the payment to the chairman, Daniel Vasella, was made last Friday, just two weeks before a Swiss referendum to give shareholders more power to determine executive compensation. Mr. Vasella, who had previously said that he would step down as chairman at Novartis’s annual shareholder meeting on Friday, is to receive the sum, 72 million Swiss francs, over six years. 

In a statement, Mr. Vasella said that 'it has been very important to Novartis that I refrain from making my knowledge and know-how available to competitors and to take advantage of my experience with the company.'

Unprecedented Resistance by Shareholders, Politicians and the Public

The plan to provide this "golden parachute" met stunning resistance from Swiss citizens and company shareholders.  As the Times reported,

Swiss lawmakers and shareholder activists criticized the company over the weekend for not making the amount public earlier. They also contended that the planned payment was just the latest of several bad decisions by Novartis on executive pay.

Ethos, a Swiss group of investors, on Monday called on Novartis to immediately cancel the contract with Mr. Vasella and take back any money already paid.

Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People’s Party, told a Swiss newspaper, SonntagsZeitung, that Mr. Vasella’s compensation was 'beyond evil.' Simonetta Sommaruga, the Swiss federal justice minister, told another newspaper, SonntagsBlick, that the payment was an 'enormous blow for the social cohesion of our country' and that such 'help-yourself mentality' was damaging confidence in the economy. 

Even Swiss identified as pro-business or right-wing joined in the criticism.  As reported by the Swiss Broadcasting Company, 

Philipp Müller, president of the centre-right Radical Party which traditionally has close links with the business community, is quoted as saying Vasella was 'taking liberal Switzerland to the henchman'.

Other politicians described the latest figure as 'disgusting' and denounced the recklessness of top managers.

The director of the Swiss Business Federation, which has been leading the fight against the initiative, said he was surprised by the 'dimension of the payment' to Vasella.

A Golden Parachute Despite a Past Record of Misadventures

Maybe there would have been even more outrage if those in Switzerland had known about Novartis' track record of misadventures, at least in the US, while Vasella had been leading it.  In particular,

-  In 2011, as we noted here, a company subsidiary paid $150 million to settle charges by several US states that it had misrepresented pricing information

-  In 2010, as we noted here, the company settled US federal civil and criminal charges in connection with its marketing of multiple drugs for $422.5 million.  The charges included giving kickbacks to physicians disguised as speakers' honorariums and fees for serving on advisory boards.  

-  In 2010, as we noted here, the company settled separate US charges that it made false claims to support off-label marketing of its drug tobramycin for cystic fibrosis for $72.5 million. 

- In 2008, as we noted here, the company settled charges in the US state of Alabama that it defrauded Medicaid for $33.7 million.

However, these legal escapades were not mentioned in the recent media coverage of the proffered and then withdrawn parachute. 

The Company Backs Down.

Nonetheless, what was really surprising was that the outrage made the company back down.  Per the Wall Street Journal, 

Novartis AG on Tuesday abandoned a 72-million-Swiss-franc ($78 million) exit package for its chairman, bowing to pressure from shareholders and Swiss politicians after four days of increasing criticism.

The Swiss drug maker said its board and Chairman Daniel Vasella agreed to cancel a six-year noncompete and related-compensation agreement designed to prevent him from joining or advising rivals and which would have paid him 12 million francs a year.

The agreement was scheduled to take effect on Friday, when Dr. Vasella, 59 years old, is planning to leave the Basel-based company at its annual shareholder meeting

Furthermore,

In the Novartis statement on Tuesday, Dr. Vasella acknowledged that his offer hadn't soothed public opinion: 'I have understood that many people in Switzerland find the amount of the compensation linked to the noncompete agreement unreasonably high,' he said. 

In addition, as Reuters noted, Vasella actually admitted he made "mistakes,"

'The fierce reaction and reproaches that were made as a consequence of the many-sided discussions about my compensation did leave its mark on me,' 59-year-old Vasella said in his opening address to 2,688 shareholders gathered at Novartis's annual general meeting in Basel.

'I made two avoidable mistakes: the first was to even negotiate this contract. And the second to believe that giving up this individual payment to charities would be considered as something positive by society.'

Of course, it is hard to believe that Novartis had previously paid him as lavishly as it did  - the New York Times had reported that his pay just prior to resignation was 12.4 million francs, "about $13.4 million a year" -  without securing an agreement to protect trade secrets.  Many businesses routinely add confidentiality clauses, trade secret protection, and non-compete clauses to contracts of many employees.  Thus adding a $78 million golden parachute ostensibly just to protect trade secrets and defection to the competition seems like impossibly gilding the lily.  Furthermore, if Novartis really thought that Vasella was likely to run to another firm at the drop of a hat, it would have made no sense to entrust someone thought to be at risk of such disloyalty with top leadership positions.

Reason for Hope

At least Chairman Vasella admitted "mistakes," and at least the ridiculous pay package was rescinded. This incident does show that it is possible for public and shareholder outrage over gargantuan payments to executives to have some effect.  That seems like real progress, and a reason to hope. 

Of course, executives of public for-profit corporations are supposed to be working for shareholders.  Thus their general impunity from shareholders' control up to now remains inexplicable.  Furthermore, executives of pharmaceutical companies and other health care corporations seemingly should be responsible for putting patients' and the public's health ahead of their own enrichment.  Thus their ability up to now to ignore public concern about their companies' actions, and to avoid personal responsibility for their companies' bad actions also remains inexplicable.

But progress may now be possible.  In and outside of Switzerland, shareholders of publicly-held for-profit health care corporations should demand accountability from the executives who are supposed to be working for them.  In and outside of Switzerland, health care professionals, policymakers, and the public at large should demand accountability from leaders of health care organizations for the effects of their organizations on patients' and the public's health.