Merck’s use of ghostwriters criticized

Two new reports involving the painkiller Vioxx raise fresh concerns about how drug companies influence the interpretation and publication of medical research.

The reports claim that Merck & Co. frequently paid academic scientists to take credit for research articles prepared by company-hired medical writers, a practice called ghostwriting. They also contend that Merck tried to minimize deaths in two studies that showed that the now withdrawn Vioxx didn’t work at treating or preventing Alzheimer’s disease.

Merck called the reports in today’s Journal of the American Medical Assn. false and misleading. Five writers of the journal articles were paid consultants for people who sued Merck over Vioxx’s heart and stroke risks; the sixth testified about Vioxx’s heart risks before a Senate panel. Merck says those connections make the reports themselves biased.

Although Merck is singled out, the practices are not uncommon, according to JAMA’s editors. In an editorial, they urge strict reforms, including cracking down on ghostwriting and requiring all authors to spell out their specific roles.

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA’s editor, said those were already policies at JAMA but not at many other journals.

“The manipulation is disgusting. I just didn’t realize the extent,” she said.

The practices outlined in JAMA could lead editors to publish biased research that could result in doctors giving patients improper and even harmful treatment, she said.