Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / January 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Pfizer Is Sued Over Lipitor Marketing

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Marilyn Mann - 20 Dec 2007 12:06 GMT
Pfizer Is Sued Over Lipitor Marketing
By DAVID ARMSTRONG
December 20, 2007; Page B5

A former Pfizer Inc. official in a lawsuit accused the company of
illegally boosting sales of its top-selling drug Lipitor through an
elaborate campaign of misleading educational programs for doctors.

Jesse Polansky, claims that the educational campaign was a key part of
a marketing strategy that "led thousands of physicians to prescribe
Lipitor for millions of patients who did not need medication" and
could be harmed by overly aggressive treatment.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York in February 2004. It was immediately sealed to allow
federal prosecutors time to decide if they wanted to intervene in the
case. In August, the government said it wouldn't intervene, lifting
the seal. Pfizer was served a copy of the suit yesterday, according to
Dr. Polansky's lawyer, Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

The failure of the government to intervene may signal that prosecutors
are skeptical about the merits of the case. The government hasn't
intervened in other cases which led to huge fines against drug
companies. One example is another case involving Pfizer, this one for
the off-label marketing of Neurontin.

Pfizer said, "We believe this case has no merit. Furthermore, after
reviewing the allegations in this complaint, the government declined
to intervene in this action... . Pfizer does not condone the off-label
promotion of our products. We believe that our sales and marketing
practices are solely based on our prescription information as approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."

Dr. Polansky was Pfizer's director of outcomes management strategies
from 2001 to 2003, and his responsibilities included reviewing some of
the marketing materials for Lipitor and other Pifzer products. He says
he was fired by Pfizer after complaining about marketing he considered
to be improper. Dr. Polansky now works as the senior medical officer
for Medicare in a unit that investigates fraud and abuse at the big
government health insurer.

The suit seeks compensation for Dr. Polansky as a whistleblower under
laws that could give him a share of money recovered for any
overpayments made by federal health-insurance programs.

Lipitor, a type of cholesterol treatment known as a statin, is the
world's biggest-selling drug , with sales of $13.6 billion last year,
according to IMS Health.

The allegations against Pfizer echo concern elsewhere that continuing
medical-education programs for doctors are often sales pitches for
"off-label" uses of drugs. A congressional committee this past summer
said it was concerned there was little oversight of these programs --
where doctors are often wined and dined -- or enforcement when
companies use them as marketing tools.

Pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from marketing drugs for
indications other than what the FDA approves them for, although
doctors aren't prohibited from prescribing them for unapproved uses.
Independent educational programs can discuss off-label uses that
aren't FDA approved. But Dr. Polansky's lawsuit charges that the
Pfizer-funded programs weren't independent.

The Lipitor educational programs were run by companies paid by Pfizer
through "unrestricted educational grants," the lawsuit says. It
alleges that the educational programs were integrated into the
marketing plan for the drug, citing an internal Pfizer marketing plan
for Lipitor with a page titled "Medical Education Platform Supports
the New Positioning."

Among other things, Dr. Polansky says Pfizer wanted to extend Lipitor
use beyond the indications found on the drug's label by targeting
people at moderate risk of developing heart disease or having a heart
attack. He said the educational programs for doctors deliberately
misrepresented the drug's label to encourage Lipitor therapy for
people in the moderate-risk category who didn't need the drug.

In his suit, Dr. Polansky also said the Pfizer programs included
deliberate misinformation promoting the idea that kidney-disease
patients may need to be treated with statins. While kidney disease is
recognized by some doctors as a risk for heart disease, it isn't part
of the federal guidelines that factor into Lipitor's approved use.

Write to David Armstrong at david.armstrong@wsj.com
Marilyn Mann - 21 Dec 2007 19:55 GMT
Here's a link to the complaint:

http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/Amended_Complaint_secured1198189024452.pdf
Marilyn Mann - 14 Jan 2008 01:13 GMT
> Here's a link to the complaint:
>
> http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/Amended_Complaint_secured1198189024452.pdf

Update:  If you are interested in following this litigation, go to the
following webpage:

http://www.hagens-berman.com:80/pfe.htm;jsessionid=aEC2ug7Ml9rf

If you have a question/comment about off-label marketing of Lipitor,
click on
"Comment/questions."

Marilyn
Sanity's Little Helper - 26 Dec 2007 20:03 GMT
Marilyn Mann <mannm@comcast.net> wrote in news:09ac18d2-ecd2-4b24-87de-
f42cf49558d4@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com to sci.med.cardiology:

> Pfizer Is Sued Over Lipitor Marketing
> By DAVID ARMSTRONG
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
>
> Write to David Armstrong at david.armstrong@wsj.com

The pharm industry wants the whole world over the age of 45 to be on
statins. The fact is, cholesterol levels go up as one gets older, the
evidence that it is harmful at all is not conclusive. It correlates with
coronary disease, to be sure, but so do triglycerides. I do tend to have
high LDL cholesterol and very high triglycerides, but my BP is normal for
a 35 year old, my rest pulse rate is 58 and I'm 52.

There is anecdotal evidence of side effects that are not listed with the
enclosed leaflet that comes with atorvastatin, including impaired short
term memory and other neurological issues. I was diagnosed with severe
occupational stress-induced depression at about the same time as I ceased
to take statins. The symptoms cleared up over a few months without me
taking the SSRIs I was prescribed, and my blood tests continued to
improve as I changed my diet and lifestyle to include more oily fish and
more exercise.

Signature

David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis

And now, today's sponsor message:

For the P.T. Barnum of non-verified medicine, it's got to be:
Earthquack.

David Rollo - 27 Dec 2007 02:36 GMT
Without going into the merits of Polansky's lawsuit, which sounds
quite plausible to me, the comments that "pharm industry wants the
whole world over the age of 45 to be on
statins" and that "cholesterol levels go up as one gets older, the
evidence that it is harmful at all is not conclusive" are not really
relevant. The common belief that the aim of statin therapy is to lower
cholesterol is a mistake.  The whole focus on cholesterol numbers is
probably misguided, although they do correlate with serious adverse
events in most populations (and yes, with some notable exceptions).

The aim of statin therapy is not to lower cholesterol, but to prevent
heart attacks, strokes and premature death. How statins might do this
could almost be considered irrelevant. However I don't see how anyone
could regard the evidence that statins successfully achieve this in
most groups studied as other than very convincing. To suggest to
someone at high risk of arterial disease or its complications that
they not take a statin is like suggesting they drive with bald tires.
As for side-effects ... well, they exist, but serious ones are hard to
find. In the recently-published trial of rosuvastatin in heart failure
more people ceased the placebo because of side-effects than they did
rosuvastatin.

Most of the statins are now out of patent and with generic forms
costing a few cents a tablet there's probably not much profit there.
On the published data it hardly seems challengeable that if "the whole
world over the age of 45" were taking a statin, the rates of coronary
disease and stroke would be dramatically reduced. This is the basis of
the proposal for the "polypill" that would reduce coronary disease by
80%. Of course you could achieve approximately the same result by a
program of healthy living. In the huge US Health Professionals study
of 51,000+ doctors, now running for 17+ years, adoption of 5 simple
lifestyle measures has been associated with an 87% reduction of
coronary events. The catch is that only 4% of doctors adopted those
lifestyle measures. My guess is that in the wider community the
proportion would be even lower. Conclusion: If you really want to save
the world from vascular disease, offering everyone over 45 (or maybe
50, or 55) a generic statin is the strategy most likely to be
effective, however unpalatable and clumsy mass-medication might appear
to be.

David Rollo
Cardiologist, Melbourne Australia
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Dec 2007 08:06 GMT
> Without going into the merits of Polansky's lawsuit, which sounds
> quite plausible to me, the comments that "pharm industry wants the
> whole world over the age of 45 to be on
> statins" and that "cholesterol levels go up as one gets older, the
> evidence that it is harmful at all is not conclusive" are not really
> relevant.

At best.  At worst, deceptive.

Knowing the source, the latter is the case here.

> The common belief that the aim of statin therapy is to lower
> cholesterol is a mistake.  The whole focus on cholesterol numbers is
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> lifestyle measures. My guess is that in the wider community the
> proportion would be even lower.

However, doctors do make the worst patients.

> Conclusion: If you really want to save
> the world from vascular disease, offering everyone over 45 (or maybe
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> David Rollo
> Cardiologist, Melbourne Australia

It remains wiser for folks to eat less, down to the optimal amount:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/EatLess

May you and other dear friends, family and neighbors have a blessedly
wonderful New Years ...

... by being hungrier:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ac2e9182437e0f50?

Hunger is wonderful :-)

It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good.

Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed

"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...

... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)

Amen.

Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Bondservant to the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
news.chi.sbcglobal.net - 27 Dec 2007 20:17 GMT
If anyone can buck the pharm industry, please state it here.
They want the whole population at any age to be on anti-depressants.   and
anti-depressants are sure to kill a portion of the population and cause
intense suffering to untold others in the form of crohns disease and
ulcerative colitis.   They have a mind/body effect  (as I have said many
times before) from the user of the stimulant to the mind of a friend or
relative, unknown by all parties, that cause crohns and UC, and continue the
damage regardless if the two or more parties are in the same room or miles
apart.     Nursing homes and all institutions can never be a safe haven for
care and treatment of their illness as long as anti-depressants are given to
some residents.   Many not on anti-depressants acquire crohns or UC in
addition to their organic illness for which they were admitted.   Physicians
do not even recognize the difference between original illness and acquired
illness having no  relation to what they were admitted for.     How long
will this last.    It is a crime if anyone has a friend or family member in
a nursing home.   Their lives are shortened not by G-d, but by the pharms
first, physicians second, administrators of the home third.     When will
this subtle and not so subtle damage be recognized as such.
A movement needs to be started against anti-depressants in spite of their
good use, but deadly side effects.
It will eventually touch most people as the use of anti-depressants causes
others to need anti-depressants, because of the depressive and fatiguing and
total bodily harm  of crohns and UC.    Enough is enough, it will not
bankrupt the pharms, just lessen their ill-gotten funds.    Let them make up
the slack with tranquillizers which do no harm and give some relief to
illness and use talk therapy as psychiatry did years ago.
Gail Michael

The comments that "pharm industry wants the
>> whole world over the age of 45 to be on
>> statins"
bigvince - 14 Jan 2008 04:37 GMT
> Without going into the merits of Polansky's lawsuit, which sounds
> quite plausible to me, the comments that "pharm industry wants the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> could regard the evidence that statins successfully achieve this in
> most groups studied as other than very convincing. ..................

..................Conclusion: If you really want to save
> the world from vascular disease, offering everyone over 45 (or maybe
> 50, or 55) a generic statin is the strategy most likely to be
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> David Rollo
> Cardiologist, Melbourne Australia

A recent study published in the Lancet would disagree it found no
benefit from statins  in either women or the elderly in primary
prevention in fact the only group that recieved a slight benefit was
middle aged men.

As most statins are used in primary care this view is not universally
endorsed heres an interesting review from the  University of British
Columbia

Do Statins have a Role in Primary Prevention?  http://www.ti.ubc.ca/en/node/52
,,,,,,,,,,,,Conclusions:
If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation, 71
primary prevention patients with cardiovascular risk factors have to
be treated with a statin for 3 to 5 years to prevent one myocardial
infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of overall
health impact, total mortality and total serious adverse events.
Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an overall health
benefit in primary prevention trials. "

No mortality benefit nor  reduction in serious adverse events not the
life saving drug so offen over marketed. To populations unlikely to
recieve benefit.
Thanks Vince
bigvince - 14 Jan 2008 04:54 GMT
>Conclusion: If you really want to save
> the world from vascular disease, offering everyone over 45 (or maybe
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> David Rollo
> Cardiologist, Melbourne Australia

Usually I do not reply twice to the same piece but here I will to
characterize the very slight ;if any benefit; of  giving statins to
everone over 50 as a plan to "save the world from vascular disease "
seems to be rather an overstatement. If you really want to almost
elimanate heart disease by far the best way is to maintain optimal
weight ; exercise ; get optimal levels of vitamin d and omega 3 fats.
Eat some fruits and lots of vegetables restrict sugars ect. .

Thanks Vince
listener - 14 Jan 2008 15:50 GMT
bigvince <Vince.Miraglia@gmail.com> wrote in news:236d2450-7584-4441-
b3c1-f4e5e629bd64@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> >Conclusion: If you really want to save
>> the world from vascular disease, offering everyone over 45 (or maybe
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>  Thanks Vince

Yeh, obviously that cardiologist doesn't know what he's talking about but
Vince (whom I'm assuming is not a cardiologist) knows how to elimanate
[sic] heart disease. It's simple:

Maintain weight.
Exercise.
Vitamin D.
Omega 3.
Fruit.
Vegetables.
No sugars.

Viola! Heart Disease (almost) Gone!
bigvince - 14 Jan 2008 16:38 GMT
For those who have trouble reading for comprehension.

 The effect of lifestyle changes on heart disease

"Men who adopt five key lifestyle changes are 87% less likely to
develop coronary heart disease than men who adopt none of the changes
Environmental Nutrition,  Sept, 2006
Men who adopt five key lifestyle changes are 87% less likely to
develop coronary heart disease than men who adopt none of the changes.
That's what Harvard researchers found who followed almost 43,000 men
as part of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. They found five
changes were key to a lower risk of heart disease: 1) not smoking, 2)
maintaining a healthy weight--body mass index of less than 25, 3)
exercising daily for at least 30 minutes, 4) drinking alcohol in
moderation--1/2 drink to two drinks a day, 5) eating healthfully, such
as reducing saturated and trans fats. Even men on blood pressure or
cholesterol medication experienced 57% less risk by adopting these
changes."

5 lifestyle changes heart disease almost gone .
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.