April 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm andy
How Ezetimibe (Zetia) was tested:

(CHERYL CORNACCHIA The Gazette Tuesday, February 24, 2004):

‘When a company contacted Colin Rose and offered to pay him $6,000 to refer patients to a drug study, they had the wrong doctor. Rose, a cardiologist at the Montreal General Hospital, not only said no, but he passed the written offer to the College des Medecins du Quebec, suggesting it investigate the ethics of paying doctors to refer patients. ‘

I’m about the last one on Earth they should have contacted,’ Rose said yesterday. It turns out that the physicians’ college doesn’t investigate those kinds of cases, but the doctor is no less upset by the offer to send patients to the study, which was sponsored by Merck Frosst. Rose, who is also an assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, is outspoken about what he sees as an increasingly cozy relationship between doctors and drug companies. He says it undermines doctors’ will to suggest alternatives like lifestyle changes instead of prescription drugs.

The hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease study to which Rose referred is being conducted by the Clinical Research Consultant Group at the Seaforth Medical Building on Cte des Neiges Rd. The group’s letter to Rose, dated Nov. 18, 2003, detailed how he would receive an honorarium of $6,000 if he referred at least one patient being treated for high cholesterol and heart disease. He would have been required to perform a physical exam of the patients at the beginning and end of the study and write the initial prescription. ‘

Nurses employed by the group would do the rest - seeing patients throughout the 12-week study. The study is evaluating the cholesterol-lowering efficacy of a 10-milligram dose of a drug called Ezetimibe when given with a 10-milligram or 20-milligram dose of Atorvastatin, another cholesterol-lowering drug. Both drugs are approved for use in Canada.

Rose later received an e-mail from Bernice Pynn, the lead researcher of the drug study, saying ‘at this time there is no discussion of publication’ of the study results. Pynn, a biochemist, was unavailable for comment yesterday. However, an assistant at the clinical research group confirmed the multisite study is sponsored by Merck Frosst. So far, she said, 15 patients are enrolled in Montreal. Vincent Lamoureux, a spokesperson for Merck Frosst in Kirkland, said doctors are sometimes compensated for their time. However, he said, he was unfamiliar with the study Rose cited, even though ‘there definitely seems to be a link to some of what we do.’

Copyright 2004 Montreal Gazette

I feel M-SP has clearly created this problem for themselves and have at umerous opportunities to nip this thing in the bud with an admission of error in handling the situation, a tone of contrition but they have remained arrogant if not belligerent in the face of evolving beliefs about cholesterol, cardiac impact, etc. The recent LA Times article showed that many Drs believed that they may have let Vytorin get out in front of them and were rxing first line when not warranted. The recent Crestor trial which showed that controlling inflammation in pts with cholesterol scroes too low to warrant statin treatment based on the numbers may dictate that lowering cholesterol is not the “surrogate” for heart disease that M-SP is trying to INFER. M-SP has received alot of business that is not warranted and now they are crying foul. I know it may be a stretch for some in the media to say, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SAID. M-SP is the spoiled brat that needs to be punished and Congress is taking the paddle out now.

I think some on this site could use a lesson on conversational terrorism.

Thanks for the note. And believe it or not, I am open to other opinions. I’m not sure what it is you’re referring to when you say you’d like me to be more open to other opinions, to be honest. But here are a few quick thoughts…

I don’t shut people down or out from the comments section. And I try to be respectful of the opinions expressed in the comments, even when I may disagree. Generally, though, I stay out of the comments section, unless I feel I have something to offer, there’s a need to redirect a thread, or I’ve been asked or challenged specifically to respond to something. But I don’t feel it’s my job to ensure any discussion have a particular tone or point of view.

Moreover, I cherish input from all parties when pursuing a story, and want as much as possible to be represented in my posts. If a drugmaker, for example, denies comment, whatever the reason and whatever the story, that’s the company’s decision. Not mine. But I want those views to be in the mix. Blogs are designed for more open communication than the industry is used to encountering, but it’s here to take advantage of, should anyone want. I’d like to see as many views expressed as possible, in fact.

I’ve also run a couple of guest columns - a sort of op-ed, if you will - and introduced those by noting I’d be open to doing more and invited suggestions. So if someone with legit creds, sufficient stature or unique experience has a suggestion and wants me to consider running something, I’m open to doing so. As I’ve always said, it’s a big pharma world and there’s room for all sorts of ideas.

Running this site is new and challenging. But I remain open to ideas because that’s how we learn - you, me and everyone else who stops by here - and while I’ll make mistakes from time to time, I have nothing to gain by excluding or rejecting certain opinions or views.

That’s my 1.5 cent, adjusted for the shrinking dollar.

Cheers
ed