Synthes Indicted

Last month, we posted about a legal settlement in which device manufacturer Synthes agreed to stop creating conflicts of interests by paying physicians who performed its trials with company stock. Synthes is back in the news, and not in favorable terms. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer,

A Swiss company with major operations in West Chester illegally tested its bone cement on about 200 people, three of whom died, according to a 52-count indictment issued yesterday by the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia.

Synthes Inc., a producer of orthopedic products that employs about 1,400 in Chester County, did not tell any of the patients that they were participating in experimental surgeries, the indictment said.

Federal prosecutors also accused Synthes executives of lying to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about whether they had tested the product for uses that the agency had not approved.

Particularly striking were allegations that the company's CEO was directly involved in the decisions.

The FDA had approved Norian XR to fill bony voids or defects in some parts of the body, but not in the spine. The agency insisted that Synthes conduct clinical trials, which are lengthy and expensive and require FDA oversight, if it wanted to expand the uses of Norian XR to treat spinal fractures.

But, a company executive identified in the indictment as 'Person No. 7' decided not to conduct clinical trials. Instead, the person said the company should 'get a few sites to perform 60-80 procedures and help them publish their clinical results,' according to the indictment.

The report never explicitly identifies 'Person No. 7,' but says he was the chief executive officer and a large shareholder. A company spokesman identified Hansjörg Wyss as the CEO while the tests occurred.

Forbes Magazine lists Wyss, a Swiss citizen, as a West Chester resident and the Philadelphia area's wealthiest person, with a net worth of $5.7 billion. Last year, Wyss gave the largest amount from a single source in Harvard University's history when he donated $125 million to create a bio-engineering institute.

Wyss owns about 40 percent of outstanding Synthes stock. The company, which had about $805 million in first-quarter sales this year, specializes in orthopedic devices, including plates and screws.

The Inquirer article included more detail about how the company allegedly disregarded risks to patients as it pushed the surgeons to try Norian XR on them, without disclosing that its use was experimental,

Instead of conducting trials with FDA oversight, Synthes executives convinced about 50 surgeons to test Norian XR in people with spinal fractures. Synthes sales representatives often were in the operating room during the surgeries, including those where patients died, prosecutors said.

When company executives began these surgical tests in 2002, they knew that Norian XR caused blood clots in test tubes and that clots became lodged in the lungs in tests with pigs, the indictment said.

Synthes continued the experimental surgeries even after two patients died on the operating table, prosecutors said. The company stopped the tests after a third patient died in January 2004.

Again, it seems that the current leaders of health care all too often put more priority on personal profits than on protecting patients' health and safety. So instead of all the talk about reforming how health care is financed, maybe the conversation should be about reforming how health care is lead, and finding ethical, honest leaders who put patients' welfare ahead of their own wealth.

Look Who's In The Operating Room

At an article today entitled "Medtronic Says Device for Spine Faces Probe" (Wall St. Journal, Nov. 19, 2008, subscription required) the WSJ reports another major medical device manufacturer, Medtronic, faces a probe for promoting unapproved uses of its technologies, which is improper:

Doctors can deploy FDA-approved drugs and products any way they see fit, but companies aren't permitted to promote off-label applications or to pay doctors inducements to do so.

"While the law establishes that doctors can prescribe any approved treatment, but off-label promotion by manufacturers is not allowed, there's growing concern that the line is being crossed, and a Justice Department review is the right kind of response to those questions," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) who has been looking into whether inducements by Medtronic have led doctors to use its products off-label.

This type of story is common at Healthcare Renewal, and the blog leaves quite a rich trail of search engine-available information, since the healthcare blogs are relatively immune to the anechoic effect. I see numerous hits from governmental agencies in the U.S. and overseas, for example, on search engine queries regarding malfeasance or incompetence at specific companies and organizations. I will not comment on the ethics of the Medtronic/nonapproved promotion issue any further here.

I do want to comment, however, on an item in the WSJ article that caught my eye:

Depositions in a malpractice lawsuit brought by Laurie DeNeui, of Rushmore, Minn., focused on off-label Infuse use and Medtronic salesman Curt Messler's relationship to her spinal surgeon, Bryan J. Wellman of Sioux Falls, S.D. Mr. Messler said in his depositions in the case that he was with Dr. Wellman in the operating room "a lot" when he used Infuse. He also said he considered Dr. Wellman a friend and said the men saw each other socially.

... About four days after her October 2005 operation to fuse cervical vertebrae, Ms. DeNeui said in an interview, her neck swelled up, she had trouble swallowing and she started choking on food. Soon, she said, she started having difficulty breathing. Ms, DeNeui, 46, said the problems prevented her from returning to work as a teacher and baffled several specialists. Steroid treatment helped ease the breathing and gagging problems, but caused her to gain weight and contract diabetes.

Dr. Wellman denies any malpractice. In a deposition, he said Mr. Messler encouraged him to use Infuse in cervical spine operations, and that he has done more than 100 such procedures with the product. Dr. Wellman said he discussed with Mr. Messler the right dosage of the Infuse material to use in the surgeries but determined the dosage on his own.

Mr. Messler, who isn't a physician, has a degree in criminal justice, and his prior work history included owning a bar and jobs with New York Life Insurance Co. and Procter & Gamble Co. In his depositions, Mr. Messler denied encouraging Dr. Wellman to use Infuse for unapproved applications or discussing how much to use.

This is the typical I said-he said scenario. That issue's adjudication will also not be discussed here. While the article also states this patient signed a consent to permit Medtronic representatives to be in the operating room, I have several questions of a very fundamental nature.

In background to these questions, when I was fifteen years old I attended the summer NSF-funded Advanced Preceptorship Training Program (ATP) at Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital back in the early 1970's. It was a program designed to introduce high school students to biomedicine (ironically Hahnemann's former medical college is now part of Drexel University, where I teach healthcare informatics). I was assigned back then to watch surgery under the surgical team of Drs. Pearce, Ulin and Weinstein, permitted to scrub in and hold retractors, and in one case to actually saw through a femur in a leg amputation for diabetes-related gangrene. I also made rounds with the surgical team. While today this practice would probably not be permitted on privacy and malpractice concerns, I can honesty admit I offered no advice on surgical procedures or other interventions. I simply didn't have the background.

In the Medtronics situation of reps in the O.R., I thus ask the following questions:

• Were patients and others in the O.R. aware of the lack of the Medtronic sales representative's medical credentials?
• Are such consents sought and signed routinely for allowance of medical device company reps in the operating theater?
• What, exactly, was the purpose of having a nonmedical person in the O.R.? What, exactly, could such a person contribute?
• Why would any patient want a nonmedical person in the O.R. with the potential for that person to give advice or affect the procedure in some manner?
  
• What were patients told to convince them to sign the consent?
  
• If advice was given of any kind to any clinician the O.R., would that not constitute the practice of medicine without a license?
• What were the rep's obligations if they witnessed anything they thought could be misuse of the device, or any other practice they thought improper?
• Did the rep follow the surgical team around in postop care?
• Why couldn't Medtronic actually hire people with medical backgrounds for such roles, instead of a former bar owner and P&G sales rep? Could such people be afforded?
  
• Might people with medical credentials and experience actually be better suited to make valid scientific observations in the O.R. setting?

These are just some of the questions that come to mind in the seemingly inexhaustible cornucopia of nonmedical people either leading healthcare organizations or performing roles perhaps better performed by people who actually have a medical background, and actually know at a very detailed level what they're doing.



-- SS

Update on the NIH “Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy”

(Some of the following is identical to a post on Science-Based Medicine dated 9/26/08.)

A few days ago, while gathering information for a post on Science-Based Medicine about intravenous hydrogen peroxide, I noticed this:

ACAM Supports NIH Decision to Suspend TACT Trial

September 3, 2008, Laguna Hills, Calif. — The American College for Advancement in Medicine, ACAM today announced its support for the National Institute for Health’s (NIH) decision to suspend patient accrual of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Trial until allegations of impropriety can be proven false. ACAM believes that the TACT trial represents a important milestone in assessing the role of chelation therapy in modern healthcare and respects the decision of the NIH.

ACAM continue to work with Dr Tony Lamas to answer the unfounded allegations of impropriety.

“We believe that the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) will find that the allegations are of a political nature. To serve the best interests of participants enrolled in the TACT trial and all patients and their physicians who seek answers about chelation therapy, we call for a swift end to the moratorium and resumption of the trial,” said Jeanne Drisko, MD, President of ACAM.

I alerted a few others, including Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, who queried the news room of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI: the joint sponsor, along with the NCCAM, of the trial) and got this reply:

The investigators and institutions performing the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT), in conjunction with their Institutional Review Boards, have temporarily and voluntarily suspended enrollment of new participants in the study. NIH has not issued any announcement or press release about this action. To contact the Office for Human Research Protections’ (OHRP) press office, call Pat El-Hinnawy, (202) 253-0458.

The “allegations of impropriety” mentioned in the ACAM press release had been made by my co-authors and me in a comprehensive article previously introduced on Health Care Renewal here. The article is available in its entirety here. In June, we made a formal complaint to the federal Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), citing that article and additional information posted on Science-Based Medicine here. That our complaint was the instigating factor for the recent “decision to suspend patient accrual” is suggested by an email that I received last week:

I would like to know who is paying you guys off. Finally we have a chance to assess Chelation therapy and put the issue to rest and to find out whether or not it really works and you bozos screw it all up. I know that the trial was stopped and it is your fault. What are you afraid of? Why are you not decrying all of the injuries caused by medications and unnecessary surgeries? Why are we the citizens of the US deprived of a trial of EDTA so that we can judge for ourselves?

Anyone who is a thinking man, can only be disappointed in you. [sic]

Binyamin Rothstein, D.O.

Rothstein, unlike many of his fellow ACAM members, does not appear to be a TACT investigator. Like them, however, he touts chelation, intravenous hydrogen peroxide, and other baseless and dangerous treatments. He has harmed patients, his protestations nothwithstanding. His medical license was revoked in 2005, but that hasn’t hindered him from using smoke and mirrors in his relentless pursuit of profit from nonsense. He’s even managed to promote himself to the public without revealing key items from his resumé—one of the many reasons that even the most diligent regulation can’t always protect the public from scoundrels.

At least two reporters have recently covered the story (here and here). They mostly get it right. The AP report, however, states that chelation "is mainly used to treat lead poisoning." That is not technically false, but is misleading because disodium EDTA (Na2EDTA), the drug used in the TACT, has never been approved for lead poisoning and is considerably more dangerous than calcium EDTA, the drug that is so approved. Ironically, one of our objections to the TACT is that its literature---including protocols, consent forms, and subject recruitment pitches---conflates the two drugs so as to make the study drug appear safer than it is.

Indeed, the FDA has recently withdrawn its approval of Na2EDTA, citing "important safety information" and the possibility that it may be confused with the less dangerous CaEDTA:

As noted in the January 16, 2008, Public Health Advisory, there have been cases where children and adults have died when they were mistakenly given edetate disodium instead of edetate calcium disodium (calcium disodium versenate) or when edetate disodium was used for indications other than those approved by FDA.

Readers might remember that we at HCR have previously discussed the important distinction between the two EDTA salts, after a 5-year old boy was killed in Pennsylvania when a quack administered Na2EDTA to him as a treatment for autism. At the time a CDC expert was so surprised that anyone would infuse Na2EDTA that she concluded, erroneously, that it must have been a drug error: "a case of look-alike/sound-alike medications." The PA medical board's investigation subsequently confirmed that the practitioner had intended to give Na2EDTA, exactly as we had predicted.

The TACT should now be stopped altogether. Contrary to the ACAM press release, our objections to the TACT are scrupulously documented and not “of a political nature.” They are of a scientific and ethical nature. They will not be proven false, because the evidence for them is overwhelming.