Financial Remuneration of Clinical Study Investigators

In November 2009, the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, in its White Paper, Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight, explored payments to investigators — and other potential motivators — to conduct research.  A study in this month’s IRB: Ethics & Human Research explores the impact payments may have on researchers to conduct and complete studies.  In Motivated by Money? The Impact of Financial Incentive for the Research Team on Study Recruitment, Sharon Unger and her colleagues examine the effect financial remuneration has on researchers in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Taking advantage of a “fortuitous set of circumstances” in which two separate clinical trials with nearly identical inclusion criteria were conducted simultaneously in an NICU in Canada, the authors looked at two issues: 1) whether financial remuneration impacted the rate at which the research team approached parents about research participation, and 2) whether financial remuneration impacted the rate at which parents provided consent to participate.

In the first study (Study A), a placebo-controlled trial involving a medication that was the standard of care for treatment of newborns nearing extubation to prevent apnea of prematurity, members of the research team were financially compensated for their time if they were successful in obtaining parental consent (parents were unaware of this arrangement).  In the second study (Study B), which involved two different forms of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, there was no financial compensation of the research team.  Both studies had the same recruiting team.  Study A was federally funded, multicentered and high-profile, while Study B was a single-center, unfunded trial.

The payments in Study A were per capita, which, while creating a direct incentive to recruit individual enrollees, is usually not problematic as long as the payment is not excessive.  The Center recommends “that the benchmark for compensation for physician services for research should be comparable payment for time and services for treatment. This will compensate physicians fairly for their time and services, and will assure that there are no hidden bonuses or incentives for physicians to recruit patients into research or to refer them to research rather than treatment.”  As noted in the study, finder’s fees are increasingly considered “ethically problematic;” the Center recommends a wholesale bar on finder’s fees because they can create conflicts of interest that can incentivize investigators to recruit and retain individuals who do not meet the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria.

As the authors noted, and as acknowledged in the Center’s White Paper, potential enrollees are increasingly vulnerable as increasing numbers of individuals seek to participate in research either as a primary means of access to treatment or as a form of income.  The results of this study indicate a much higher likelihood of approach when there was a prospect of financial remuneration.  These results are concerning, and were anticipated by the Center’s White Paper, which noted the potential for poor compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria and pressure to enter or remain in a clinical trial.

However, surprisingly, the authors found that, despite the much higher likelihood of approach for Study A than Study B, parents were much more likely to actually agree to enroll their newborn in Study B — for which there was no financial remuneration of the research team.  The authors explored various explanations for this result, including that the research team was overly cautious about giving the appearance that their approach for consent was motivated by financial compensation, or that parents chose to withhold consent  due to the research team’s  increased pressure.

The authors do acknowledge other potential factors — beyond financial remuneration –  that could have affected the study’s results.  For example, parents’ hesitancy to enroll their newborn in a placebo-controlled drug trial could explain the discrepancy between enrollment in the studies.  Likewise, the authors consider that parents may not have been able to differentiate between the two modes of support being investigated in Study B.  In addition, the recruiting team, when presented with the results of the study, did not recall feeling influenced by the financial arrangement of Study A, but did “recall being highly motivated to ensure the success of Study A as it was part of a high-profile, multicentered trial.”

The authors concluded by noting concerns that “there may be a point at which the amount of the financial remuneration or the manner in which it is assigned could negatively impact the ethical conduct of the researcher,” but cautions that these concerns should be balanced with the value of conducting research in patients’ best interests.  This balancing act is considerably important.  As the Center notes,

Research is critical to the advancement of medical treatment and health. It must be structured to produce high quality data that facilitates the assessment of safety and efficacy in the population for whom the treatment will be used. The good of the enterprise requires that the clinical trial system sufficiently balance the costs and benefits to physicians and prospec­tive trial participants to ensure the continued sufficient supply of researchers and subjects. The system must also be imbued with actual and perceived integrity — so that it produces scientifi­cally reliable results, participants are safe, and people trust the system sufficiently to be willing to participate.

Further Calls for Increased Oversight on Medical Research & Physician Conflitcs of Interest

The Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy has continued to focus on the implications of research funding in patients’ decisions to participate in clinical research, as well as the effects such funding can have on researcher behavior and research results.  In January 2009, the Center recommended that all financial relationships between industry and physicians be publicly disclosed by industry.  And just this month, the Center released its most recent White Paper, “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight.”

Similarly, in a November 17 letter to Francis Collins, 100 researchers, academics, and public policy analysts asked the NIH to “fund studies on medical ethics, conflicts of interest in medicine and research, and prescribing behavior” in order to determine the effects of industry-academic relationships on human health.  The letter implores the director of NIH to focus on “the research gap on the effect of conflicts of interest and commercial influence on medical decisionmaking” and to establish a mechanism for funding relevant research.

One of the primary concerns in the researchers’ letter is an issue also identified in a November OIG report, “How Grantees Manage Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health,” which found that a majority of academic researchers’ conflicts of interest are unreported.   The report flags the potential for extensive conflicts between faculty members and their government-financed research.  In response, the US Senate Finance Committee recently sent letters to several universities requesting such information.  Just yesterday, Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, reacting to national concern about physicians’ and researchers’ financial conflicts of interest, began posting external professional and industry relationships for approximately 2000 faculty members — including service on boards of directors, consulting and related activities, ownership or investment interests, royalties and inventor shares, and additional activities such as lectures and participation in scientific advisory boards and professional societies.

Further research is obviously necessary to determine how financial relationships influence — as the authors of the letter to NIH call it — “the beliefs and behaviors of researchers and clinicians, and the effects of industry-academic relationships on the generation and dissemination of medical knowledge.”  In the meantime, increased oversight of physician-industry relationships by the federal government to evaluate and oversee investigator or institutional conflicts of interest, both for research within and without academic medical centers, is necessary.

New Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Cause Controversy

Rarely do medical recommendations or clinical guidelines receive such immediate and passionate attention as those released this month by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations to the Department of Health & Human Services.  In a striking detour from prior recommendations by the Task Force and those of the American Cancer Society (ACS) that women over 40 receive a mammogram every one to two years, the Task Force now recommends:

• “against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years”;
• “biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years”;
• “against teaching breast self-examination (BSE)” (emphasis added).

In a radio interview on the new guidance, Dr. Bruce Calonge, chair of the Task Force, was asked about the USPSTF recommendation against routine screening for women in their 40’s and “the possibility that some women may die as a
result of not having routine mammograms.”  Calonge’s astonishing answer:

“what women really need to understand in that decade is that overall reduction in mortality, which is for all comers in that age group, only about 15%, because breast cancer is relatively rare in that age group, that benefit is really quite small…”

Although he claimed that cost analysis had no place in the Task Force’s recommendations, later, focusing on early detection generally, he repeated,

“I think one of the things that is important to say… that mammography’s benefit is only a 15% reduction in mortality.”

Kathleen Sebelius, HHS Secretary, has clarified that the federal policy on breast cancer screening has not changed, despite the Task Force’s recommendations.   In response to concerns that patients who seek mammograms before the age of 50 would not be covered by health insurance, Sebelius stated that she “would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.”  Despite such assurances, if past experience is a guide insurance companies will use these criteria to determine coverage.

A number of professional and advocacy groups have responded to the Task Force’s November 16 recommendation.   The ACS continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40.  The American College of Radiology issued a frankly titled statement, “USPSTF Mammography Recommendations Will Result in Countless Unnecessary Breast Cancer Deaths Each Year” and labeled the recommendations “cost cutting.”  And the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continues to recommend a screening mammography every 1-2 years for women aged 40-49 years and every year for women 50 and over, as well as to recommend BSE.

So what would the task force’s mammography recommendations mean for patients?  The changes to the recommendations extend beyond the age at which they recommend beginning mammography screening.  For example, the 2002 USPSTF recommendations explained, “[t]he precise age at which the benefits from screening mammography justify the potential harms is a subjective judgment and should take into account patient preferences” (emphasis added).  The elimination of the term “preferences” and the focus on “patient context” and the “patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms” indicates a move toward evidence-based medicine, whereby a patient’s inclinations and personality are taken less into consideration or play a less significant role in predicting outcomes.  In a November 17 New York Times article, the author asks,

Are you the sort for whom shivering in a paper gown, enduring discomfort and waiting a week for results is so unnerving that you are thrilled for a decade-long reprieve? Or are you that woman who gets an extra breast sonogram with your gynecologist even when it is not medically indicated? Do you trust scientists or prefer your own gut?

These concerns seem more like preferences than medically-supported decision-making factors.   The 2009 recommendations instruct that “the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms” be taken into account — but do not explain how far “patient context” be considered.  The recommendations do not apply to women with “known underlying genetic mutation or a history of chest radiation.”  Beyond these two exceptions, how will doctors and patients make individual decisions to start regular, biennial screening mammography?  The recommendations should be appreciated for confirming — to an extent — that the decision to begin regular screening mammography is individual.  The doctor and patient, in collaboration, should consider the patient’s risk tolerance, family history, and any other applicable factors.  Sebelius recommends that patients “[k]eep doing what you have been doing for years — talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you.”  It is unclear how the Task Force’s recommendations could affect the decision to begin mammography in an educated and reasoned way.

The Task Force’s self-examination recommendation is also worrisome.  The USPSTF states that “there is moderate or high certainty that [BSE] has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.”  However, discouraging the use of self-examination — a short, free, easy, and non-invasive process — might seem astonishing to many, particularly those who have known someone for whom a BSE has been the means by which breast cancer was first discovered.  Appreciating the concern about BSE leading to higher incidences of biopsies, additional screenings, and false-positive test results, with the increasing focus on disease prevention, this recommendation seems, at best, counter-intuitive, particularly when taking into account those who are uninsured and may not pursue other methods of breast cancer screening.

Risks to Directors and Trustees of Health Care & Life Sciences Companies: Corporate Compliance in a Distressed Economy

“Risks to Directors and Trustees of Health Care & Life Sciences Companies: Corporate Compliance in a Distressed Economy,” was sponsored by Seton Hall Law’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, Epstein Becker & Green P.C., and Navigant Consulting, Inc. The program urged profit and nonprofit health care organizations to prioritize effective corporate compliance programs, particularly in today’s economy.

Moderated by Professor Kathleen Boozang, the program featured keynote speaker Mark Anderson, the New Jersey Medicaid Inspector General, as well as presentations by Lynn Shapiro Snyder and Hervé Gouraige of Epstein Becker & Green P.C. and Sandra Piersol and Geoffrey Kaiser of Navigant Consulting, Inc.

The participants focused on the financial challenges and potential exposure for board members of health care and life sciences entities in maintaining an effective compliance program in order to minimize noncompliant behavior and corporate liability risks.  Current trends in HHS Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIA’s) have shown a movement toward imposing personal liability on boards of directors for failure to ensure that a company has an effective corporate compliance program.

Inspector Anderson first addressed the 2007 statute governing the New Jersey Office of Medicaid Inspector General, focusing in particular on the statute’s broad definitions of “fraud” and “abuse,” which allows his office broad discretion.  Asking the key question, “is your compliance compliant?”, he emphasized that effective compliance programs go beyond simple written policies and procedures, but are specific to the entity’s need to prevent fraud and abuse, and are supported at every level of management — with the tone set “at the top.”  He concentrated on one specific element of compliance programs — self-disclosure of problems within one’s own organization — and stressed that self-disclosure is essential to compliance and is in the company’s best interest, as his office provides incentives to health care entities to self-disclose.  These incentives include forgiveness or reduction of interest payments, waiver of penalties and/or sanctions, timely resolution of overpayment, and a decrease in likelihood of imposition of an OMIG Corporate Integrity Program.

Lynn Shapiro Snyder, Co-Chair of the Health Care Fraud Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green, spoke about the looming threat of enforcement activities aimed at board members of health care and life sciences entities, and noted that, until recently, the risk has been reputational rather than legal.  She highlighted the blurred line between governance and management obligations, and questioned whether boards need their own consultants to determine whether to sign off on a company’s compliance program.  Later, suggesting a simple, cost-effective way to examine the effectiveness of a compliance program, she recommended that compliance officers file (and follow) a “dummy report” within their own organization, thereby bringing to light gaps and issues in the company’s program.

Sandra Piersol, a Director with the Healthcare Disputes and Investigators practice at Navigant Consulting, addressed how directors and trustees can determine whether they have an effective corporate compliance program.  Discussing the seven elements of an effective compliance program, she emphasized ensuring that the compliance officer has direct access to the board of directors, setting the “tone at the top,” and the need for ongoing training and communication.  She provided a list of structural and operational questions to be considered when examining whether an entity’s corporate compliance program is effective, and concluded with the recommendation that boards should request the performance of an objective and comprehensive review of the program activities performed by persons independent of the compliance program.

Hervé Gouraige, Co-Group Leader of the National Litigation Practice at Epstein Becker & Green, spoke about the risk to board members of personal liability for an ineffective compliance program.  After an overview of the law as it relates to board oversight of compliance, Gouraige discussed the requirement that companies have a process established to address compliance risks within the organization.  Second, he underscored that the process must be executed by the chief compliance officer and monitored by the board.  Finally, he explained that the board must be involved in the selection of a chief compliance officer who is capable of, and willing to, stand up to the board.  He stressed that the chief compliance officer should not also be the general counsel, due to the conflicting duties and obligations of those positions.  He also suggested that there be a separate board committee — which includes the CEO, general counsel, and chief compliance officer — to monitor the compliance program.  Annually, this committee should meet without the CEO and general counsel as well.  Finally, Gouraige suggested that in order to learn about — and address — problems before a prosecutor does, compliance officers periodically spot check internal emails between employees.

Geoffrey Kaiser, Managing Director in the Healthcare Dispute, Compliance and Investigations Practice at Navigant Consulting, focused on the benefits of having an effective compliance program.  He noted that, although it is difficult to quantify the harm avoided by any program, an effective program can reduce or mitigate the risk of violations, particularly through education, which is a cost-effective way to sensitize employees to risk.  Second, having an effective voluntary information and reporting system allows a board of directors to introduce corrective measures proactively.  Third, having an effective corporate compliance program in place can influence prosecutorial discretion.  In addition, having an effective compliance program can reduce the severity of penalties facing an organization at sentencing — not only affecting the amount of the fine, but also the range in which the fine will be imposed.

Overall, each speaker highlighted the cost-effectiveness and benefits of devoting resources to an effective compliance program.  Inspector Anderson, stating that the economic environment cannot dictate compliance policies, emphasized that cutting such programs is short-sighted and a future compliance violation could potentially decimate a company in the long run.  Gouraige explained that it would be a terrible mistake to cut compliance, due to the “wisdom of the long-term investment.”  The speakers, in a question and answer session moderated by Professor Boozang, addressed effective ways to increase board attention to corporate compliance, including focusing on corporate compliance as one of the many legal requirements required by boards and underscoring the investment — rather than the cost — of implementing an effective corporate compliance program.  As attendee Eve Costopoulos of Merck aptly stated, “if you don’t pay today, you’ll pay tomorrow.”

All Photos by Sean Sime

Communication and Transparency: An Answer to Our Health Care Woes?

This past week, I had the good fortune to attend two fascinating but very different — in terms of content and setting– talks by preeminent health experts.  The first was by Princeton University Professor Uwe Reinhardt at a Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs alumni event, entitled “The U.S. Economy and Health Care: Implications for Health.”  Professor Reinhardt spoke briefly and generally on health care and insurance reform, touching on the necessary changes on both the “demand side” (insurance reform) and the “supply side” (health care delivery). The second talk was by Dr. Atul Gawande as part of the New Yorker Magazine’s 10th Annual festival, entitled “The Death of the Master Builder: A Story of Risk, Medicine, and Skyscrapers.”  Dr. Gawande’s talk, in which he expounded his 2007 New Yorker article The Checklist, argued for the implementation of a basic 19-item surgical checklist, citing a marked reduction in complications from surgery (the World Health Organization’s 2009 Surgical Safety Checklist, implementation manual, and Guidelines for Safe Surgery are all available online).

Despite addressing very different issues, I took away from these two talks a very important message: little can be accomplished in fixing our broken health care system without communication and transparency, with which come increased accountability and discipline.

While addressing the changes necessary on the health care delivery side in order to fix health care, Professor Reinhardt called for “[g]reater transparency on, and accountability for, the use of resources and outcomes.”  As an example of such transparency, he cited his proposals as chair of the New Jersey Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources.  In its January 2008 report, the Commission recommended to Governor Corzine that New Jersey require that nonprofit hospitals’ governance documents– IRS form 990s (including financial reports and submissions), board composition, and meeting minutes– be made available to the public on the entities’ web pages (for-profit hospitals routinely post their annual financial reports and submissions to the SEC on their websites).  Such full transparency would ostensibly lead to increased accountability on the part of managers of non-profit hospitals by allowing the public insight into their finances and economics.

In his talk, Dr. Gawande focused on the fact that one of the most useful aspects of the checklist is the introduction step (”Before skin incision, the entire team (nurses, surgeons, anesthesia professionals, and any others participating in the care of the patient) orally: Confirms that all team members have been introduced by name and role.”).  According to Dr. Gawande, this simple introduction fosters discipline because when everyone knows their roles and fulfills their designated functions, coordination and trust are increased — and both are very important when time is short and the stakes are high.

Of course, these calls for increased communication and transparency are nothing new — and they pervade almost every aspect of health care reform and improved medical delivery.  For example, this summer, Tim Jost espoused the benefits of the public plan, but noted that no research comparable to the data that has emerged from the Dartmouth research group on variations in health care spending “can be done on the under 65 population because private insurers regard whatever data they have to be proprietary.”  He hopes that “a public plan could make anonymized data available to researchers and be open with its subscribers about coverage and utilization policies.”  Likewise, just last week, in his “Principles for the Homestretch” for health reform, Frank Pasquale called for more competition and transparency in insurance markets.  Moreover, appeals for greater communication and transparency, and, in turn, accountability and discipline, is indicative of the larger movement to the medical home model, which “provid[es] comprehensive primary care… that facilitates partnerships between individual patients, and their personal  physicians, and when appropriate, the patient’s family.”  Increased communication and sharing of information across health care providers has been known to reduce adverse drug-drug reactions, lower medical errors, and bring attention to alternative care possibilities.

It is important to note that increased communication and transparency is not a panacea for all of our health care woes — particularly without balancing openness with ways of addressing privacy concerns.  However, as I gleaned from the talks by Professor Reinhardt and Dr. Gawande, the evidence speaks to the value of a policy of openness in many aspects of health care and medical reform.

The Biosimilars Debate: Is it Over?

Two months ago, I discussed possible federal legislation intended to balance the competing need for scientific and medical innovation with the costs to patients for biosimilars.  So where does the debate stand now?

Current proposals couple a regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars with exclusivity periods for pioneer biologics.  As part of its July 15, 2009 health reform bill, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee adopted an amendment proposed by Senators Kay Hagan (D-NC), Michael Enzi (R-WY), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that provides for a 12-year exclusivity period for pioneer biologics.   On July 31, despite protestations from Rep. chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) that the amendment is “exactly the wrong way” to create a pathway for approval of biologics, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 3200, which also includes a 12-year exclusivity period.

On September 29, ten governors wrote a letter in support of the exclusivity period to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), stating, “[i]nnovator companies must be provided with at least 12 years of non-patent data exclusivity to allow for recovery of their original investment and to ensure licensing payments to our research institutions.” Read more

Biologics, How Long Exclusive? What Cost?

Biologics — products such as vaccines, gene therapy, tissues, and recombinant therapeutic proteins that are isolated from natural sources and may be produced by biotechnology methods and other technologies — are at the center of a national debate regarding access to cutting-edge therapies and protection of biotech’s ability to create products that may require millions of dollars to develop. As always, Mintz Levin, Health Law Washington Beat (link also in the “Resources” section of this blog) has offered great coverage of the issue– articles here and here.

For months now, the federal government has been considering legislation to balance the competing need for scientific and medical innovation with the costs to patients for biosimilars (generic versions of innovator pioneer biologics, also referred to as follow-on biologics).  Unlike its approval pathway for generic small-molecule, chemically synthesized drugs, the FDA currently has no process for the approval of biosimilars.  All regulatory proposals by both the Senate and the House have included an exclusivity period for pioneer biologics before a generic biologic may be introduced in the market, as well as patent protections for the pioneer biologic.

As part of its July 15, 2009 health reform bill, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee adopted an amendment proposed by Senators Kay Hagan (D-NC), Michael Enzi (R-WY), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that provides for a 12-year exclusivity period for pioneer biologics.  Among the Senate’s other biosimilar proposals, all introduced in June 2009, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)’s bill allows for seven years of exclusivity, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)’s bill provides for a 5 year exclusivity period, and the proposal by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) calls for a nine-year exclusivity period.  In the House, Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)’s proposed bill limits the exclusion period to five years, while Anna Eshoo (D-CA)’s bill proposes an initial exclusivity period of 12 years, with a possible additional two-and-a-half years for new indications and pediatric populations.

In June 2009, the FTC released a report that determined that innovation and investment will be sustained even without the exclusivity recommended by even the least restrictive of the proposed bills.  The report states that the competition between pioneer and follow-on biologics will more closely resemble the competition between different brands of drugs — with the pioneer biologic retaining 70-90% of the market share — rather than the competition between small-molecule branded pharmaceuticals and their comparable generics — where entry of the generic drug on the market leads to loss of market share and drop in the price of the drug.  The FTC found that due to the complexities in the development and use of biologics and the absence of therapeutic equivalence between pioneer and follow–on biologics, biosimilars are unlikely to be direct substitutes for the pioneer biologics on which they were based.

Relying on the FTC’s conclusion that the introduction of follow-on biologics will lower prices and increase access, Read more

Dr. Kuklo and the Larger Lesson: Transparency in Medical Research

[Ed. note: We are very pleased to welcome Valerie Gutmann, J.D. to the blog today. Valerie joined Seton Hall Law School in 2009 as a Faculty Researcher in the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy. She came to Seton Hall from Kirkland & Ellis LLP after having graduated from Harvard Law School, where she served as an author and Editor-in-Chief of the Recent Developments Section of the Journal on Law, Medicine, and Ethics. Prior to law school, Valerie worked at the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the ABA Coordinating Group on Bioethics & the Law. In 2001 she graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and Public Policy at Princeton University, magna cum laude, where she was co-president of the Princeton Bioethics Forum.]

In a glaring example of the consequences of less-than full disclosure in research and publication, recent reports have shed light on Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo’s study of Infuse.  Dr. Kuklo’s article on the bone-growth protein manufactured by Medtronic Inc. was published by the British Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in August 2008, and was retracted in March 2009, after an army investigation found that Dr. Kuklo’s study had misleadingly promoted Infuse as “strikingly” better and more efficacious than conventional bone grafts in repairing severely shattered shin bones of Americans injured in Iraq.  Kuklo has been accused of using “falsified information” that did not match with patient records and forging signatures of four doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who he falsely claimed to be co-authors.  Dr. Kuklo also neglected to disclose his relationship with the company.

Dr. Kuklo, a former army surgeon at Walter Reed, is currently on leave from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he was associate professor of orthopaedic surgery, specializing in cervical spine, spinal deformity, spinal tumors, and spine trauma.  From August 2006 through May 2009, Dr. Kuklo was a consultant to Medtronic, who recently announced that Dr. Kuklo’s consultancy contract was being suspended (some accounts controvert the alleged timeline, and Medtronic claims that it had no involvement in the study and did not depend on the study for government regulatory approval). While working for the army, Dr. Kuklo was also paid by Medtronic to speak on the company’s behalf at meetings and to train other doctors, and was a recipient of thousands of dollars worth of trips.  Military officials have stated that there are no records that Dr. Kuklo had sought or received permission to accept money to consult for medical product companies.

Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) called for an investigation into Dr. Kuklo’s study.  Senator Grassley requested information from Walter Reed, Washington University, Medtronic, and two medical journals.  He has also publically released a list provided by Medtronic of consultants for the Infuse product, on which Dr. Kuklo had suspiciously not been included.  Spokespeople for Medtronic noted that Dr. Kuklo was not on the list because he was a general consultant to the company, rather than specific to Infuse, although he has spoken on behalf of Infuse in the past.

The Kuklo case is further evidence of the implications of incomplete disclosure, which may lead physicians to make medical decisions without all the information that should be available to them.  As we have noted in the past, the Center for Health and Pharmaceutical Law & Policy has vigorously called for such reform in its 2009 whitepaper:

All those engaged in medical research and publication, including medical professionals and institutions, medical journals, and industry, should undertake reforms to ensure the integrity of the medical literature.  Transparency in the relationship of industry and physicians would be a critical tool in this effort.