This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Merck used ghostwriters for Vioxx trials, study says
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
A study published in the April 16 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) indicates that some clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib (Vioxx, Merck & Co. Inc.) were authored by Merck employees, but were attributed to academic investigators.
Joseph S. Ross, MD, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and colleagues reviewed 250 documents that were obtained through the Vioxx litigation, according to a JAMA press release.
The investigators noted that Merck scientists often prepared manuscripts and subsequently recruited external, academically affiliated investigators to collaborate on the manuscript as guest authors.
"For the publication of scientific review papers, documents were found describing Merck marketing employees developing plans for manuscripts, contracting with medical publishing companies to ghostwrite manuscripts, and recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors," the authors wrote.
The documents also described how Merck compensated investigators with honoraria for agreeing to serve as authors on review manuscripts ghostwritten on their behalf by medical publishing companies, the JAMA release stated.
Merck responded in a press release that many of the comments are false, misleading or lack context.
"The articles are based on analyses of documents conducted by consultants hired by trial lawyers as part of their work in the Vioxx product liability litigation, and make allegations similar to those previously advanced by these consultants and related attorneys at trial," the company claimed in the release.
"We are disappointed that such false and misleading statements about Merck from trial lawyers have made their way into a medical journal," Peter S. Kim, president of Merck Research Laboratories, stated in the Merck release.
The company said a full, unbiased evaluation of the Merck documents shows significant errors in the conclusions put forward by the authors of the JAMA article and in the press release.