Pfizer Pfudging

How do you market a new drug successfully? Just ask Pfizer. A NY Times article summarizes testimonies by different experts which showed they were manipulating data to make the drug look better while suppressing other research that did not support its use. Call me crazy, but that's wrong, isn't it? The whole case details what seems like a recipe for fraud:

• delaying the publication of studies that had found no evidence the drug worked for some other disorders
• “spinning” negative data to place it in a more positive light
• bundling negative findings with positive studies to neutralize the results
• preheating oven to 400 degrees and baking for 40 minutes or until crust is brown

I understand this is just a trial and Pfizer will present something different. In fact they already put out a statement that “study results are reported by Pfizer in an objective, accurate, balanced and complete manner, with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study, and are reported regardless of the outcome of the study or the country in which the study was conducted.” Sounds like a commercial for Fox News.

Here is the bottom line: of the 21 studies on Neurontin, five were positive and 16 were negative. Of the five positive studies, four were published in full journal articles, yet only six of the negative studies were published. This is why the public doesn't trust big Pharma. I remember being detailed on this drug and for the record rarely if ever used it. This information now reinforces my own need to be more critical in my use of any new drug that is being marketed. I owe that to my patients.