Judge Quashes Pfizer Bid For NEJM Papers
3 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 1st, 2008 // 3:34 pm
A federal judge in Boston has denied a motion by the drugmaker to compel The New England Journal of Medicine to hand over confidential peer reviews and editorial notes, The Chronicle of Higher Education reports. The decision comes two weeks after a federal judge in Chicago agreed with two other journals - including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Archives of Internal Medicine - that Pfizer couldn’t force them to reveal confidential info.
In January, Pfizer filed a motion asking for peer-review documents it had subpoenaed from 11 studies on the drugs published by the various journals, including the NEJM, and also sought rejected studies, arguing the manuscripts might contain data that could be useful for its defense. The drugmaker is currently being sued in federal court in San Francisco by patients who claim its Celebrex and Bextra painkillers caused heart problems and wants the material for its defense. Bextra was withdrawn three years ago.
Unlike the other judge’s decision, the paper reports that Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin’s decision found the info sought by Pfizer to be “relevant” but also limited in “probative value.” He also said that the journal should receive protection similar to that enjoyed by journalists.
NEJM argued that releasing the info would have compromised its anonyous peer review process, a position supported in an affidavit by the editor-in-chief of Science, Donald Kennedy. In an affidavit filed on Feb. 29, JAMA’s editor-in-chief Catherine DeAngelis argued that if the court granted the motion, similar subpoenas could become routine, which could result in a “severe decline” in the number of peer reviewers and affect the journal’s ability “to properly discharge its mission to advance the betterment of public health.”
Dr. Sal Giorgianni
This is HUGE. Granting these folks the same immunity as journalists is a really big deal. It seems to be contrary to one of the most important protections for learned-intermediaries who read these journals, transparency. Could these journals really wish to set up a double standard? All must be disclosed by investigators and sponsors but nothing but the final work product must be disclosed by the publishers? My cynical-side views this as another example of protectionism for the economic interests of medical publishers i.e. that is to say if the reviewers were publically accountable for comments and criticisms they might not be so willing to work for free. It will be interesting to see if Pfizer, or someone else downstream, might try to look at alternative remedies to address alleged grievances against statements or opinions that improperly impinge on an organizations reputation or business. Without any such redress we essentially give commercial publishers the ability to say whatever they want without any public accountability.
Friday Blog Roundup « The Pump Handle
[...] Ed Silverman at Pharmalot has some good news: a federal judge has denied Pfizer’s request to force a medical journal to hand over confidential peer reviews and editorial notes. [...]
Dr. Sal Giorgianni
Not sure how this is good news for anyone. Not sure why NEJM would like to be viewed in same context as “media and journalists” (sorry Ed. S.). Last time I checked one of the least credible soruces of information in America is the media…and one of the reasons is shielded accountabiltiy. I would have thought medical journal editorial staffs would want to be in a bit of a different category; worng again.