Vioxx Research Biased, Journal Says

By Richard Seward

Published on April 16, 2008

According to the reports, Merck & Co. paid scientists to assume credit for research articles that, in fact, were ghostwritten by medical writers hired by the drug company. Additionally, the reports accuse Merck of attempting to minimize the deaths that occurred in two studies that provided evidence the drug was ineffectual at treating or preventing Alzheimer’s disease.

Merck calls JAMA’s reports biased as well as false and misleading. The company claims that five of the reports’ writers were actually paid consultants for individuals who had filed lawsuits against the drug manufacturer over the risk of heart attack and stroke associated with Vioxx. The sixth writer, according to Merck, testified about the drug’s risks before a Senate panel.

According to Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA’s editor-in-chief, this type of ghostwriting is not uncommon. However, the practice raises concerns about the publication of biased research that, in turn, can lead to doctors prescribing patient treatments that could be improper, at best, and potentially harmful.

JAMA’s reports are based on Merck documents compiled from court records of Vioxx cases. The drug was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after being linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. Last November, Merck settled thousands of Vioxx lawsuits for $4.85 billion.

Comment on this article →