Editorial
Expression of Concern
Expression of Concern Reaffirmed
N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1193March 16, 2006
- Article
On December 8, 2005, we published an expression of concern1 regarding an article by Bombardier et al. on the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research (VIGOR) study that was published in the Journal on November 23, 2000.2 Our expression of concern was prompted by evidence that the VIGOR article did not accurately represent the safety data available to the authors when the article was being reviewed for publication.
More than four months before the article was published, at least two of its authors were aware of critical data on an array of adverse cardiovascular events that were not included in the VIGOR article. These data, which should have raised concern about potential cardiovascular toxicity of rofecoxib, are part of an internal Merck memorandum.3 Two tables and a figure that are representative of the data in that document are shown in Supplementary Appendix 1 (available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org). The data indicate that there were 47 confirmed serious thromboembolic events in the rofecoxib (Vioxx) group and 20 in the naproxen group. The VIGOR article reported 56 upper gastrointestinal events in the rofecoxib group and 121 in the naproxen group. Thus, the prevention of 65 upper gastrointestinal events (of which 21 were complicated — i.e., perforation, obstruction, or severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding) came at the cost of 27 additional serious thromboembolic events in the rofecoxib group (see Supplementary Appendix 2). Prevention of one complicated gastrointestinal event was offset by the occurrence of about one serious thromboembolic event.
Although the information in the internal Merck memorandum3 was reported to the FDA and posted on its Web site4 three months after publication of the VIGOR article, it was not made available to the Journal editors during the manuscript review process. Because these data were not included in the published article, conclusions regarding the safety of rofecoxib were misleading.
We wrote to the authors explaining the reasons for our concern and requested a written response. The authors' responses appear unedited elsewhere in this issue of the Journal.5,6
As part of our expression of concern, we also pointed out that three myocardial infarctions in the rofecoxib group were not included in the data submitted to the Journal. The authors state that these events did occur during the trial but did not qualify for inclusion in the article because they were reported after a “prespecified cutoff date” for the reporting of cardiovascular events. This date, which the sponsor selected shortly before the trial ended, was one month earlier than the cutoff date for the reporting of adverse gastrointestinal events. This untenable feature of trial design, which inevitably skewed the results, was not disclosed to the editors or the academic authors5 of the study.
The information we have indicates that the VIGOR article, because it did not contain relevant safety data available to the authors more than four months before publication, did not accurately reflect the potential for serious cardiovascular toxicity with rofecoxib. We therefore reaffirm our expression of concern.
This letter was published at www.nejm.org on February 22, 2006.
- References
References
1
Curfman GD ,Morrissey S ,Drazen JM . Expression of concern: Bombardier et al., “Comparison of Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Rofecoxib and Naproxen in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis,“ N Engl J Med 2000;343:1520-8. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2813-2814
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Bombardier C ,Laine L ,Reicin A , et al. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1520-1528
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline3
Shapiro D. Cardiovascular update — VIGOR. MRL memo to Alise Reicin, Eliav Barr, and Dennis Erb. July 5, 2000.
4
Memorandum from Shari L. Targum, M.D., on the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib. (Accessed February 23, 2006, at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/briefing/3677b2_06_cardio.pdf.)
5
Bombardier C ,Laine L ,Burgos-Vargas R , et al. Response to expression of concern regarding VIGOR study. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1196-1198
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline6
Reicin A ,Shapiro D . Response to expression of concern regarding VIGOR study. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1198-1199
Web of Science
- Citing Articles (20)
Citing Articles
1
Ben Y. Reis, Karen L. Olson, Lu Tian, Rhonda L. Bohn, John S. Brownstein, Peter J. Park, Mark J. Cziraky, Marcus D. Wilson, Kenneth D. Mandl. (2012) A Pharmacoepidemiological Network Model for Drug Safety Surveillance. Drug Safety 35:5, 395-406
CrossRef2
Pfeffer, Marc A., Bowler, Marianne B., . (2011) Access to Safety Data — Stockholders versus Prescribers. New England Journal of Medicine 365:1, 1-3
Full Text3
David M Goldberg. (2011) Science at the Crossroads: Fact or Fiction?. Journal of Medical Biochemistry 30:2, 79-92
CrossRef4
Peter C Gotzsche. (2011) Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it. Trials 12:1, 249
CrossRef5
Su Golder, Yoon K. Loke, Martin Bland. (2010) Unpublished data can be of value in systematic reviews of adverse effects: methodological overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63:10, 1071-1081
CrossRef6
Xavier Bosch. (2010) Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe. EMBO reports 11:4, 252-257
CrossRef7
Tilo Grosser, Ying Yu, Garret A. FitzGerald. (2010) Emotion Recollected in Tranquility: Lessons Learned from the COX-2 Saga. Annual Review of Medicine 61:1, 17-33
CrossRef8
Matthew Wynia, David Boren. (2009) Better Regulation of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials Is Long Overdue. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:3, 410-419
CrossRef9
Christopher Viereck, Pol Boudes. (2009) An analysis of current pharmaceutical industry practices for making clinical trial results publicly accessible. Contemporary Clinical Trials 30:4, 293-299
CrossRef10
Linsey McGoey. (2009) Pharmaceutical Controversies and the Performative Value of Uncertainty. Science as Culture 18:2, 151-164
CrossRef11
Matthew C. Becker, Thomas H. Wang, Lisa Wisniewski, Kathy Wolski, Peter Libby, Thomas F. Lüscher, Jeffrey S. Borer, Alice M. Mascette, M. Elaine Husni, Daniel H. Solomon, David Y. Graham, Neville D. Yeomans, Henry Krum, Frank Ruschitzka, A. Michael Lincoff, Steven E. Nissen. (2009) Rationale, design, and governance of Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety versus Ibuprofen Or Naproxen (PRECISION), a cardiovascular end point trial of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents in patients with arthritis. American Heart Journal 157:4, 606-612
CrossRef12
(2008) Pharmaceutical Promotion and First Amendment Rights. New England Journal of Medicine 359:5, 536-537
Full Text13
Leslie I. Boden, David Ozonoff. (2007) Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should We Care?. Environmental Health Perspectives 116:1, 117-122
CrossRef14
Alexander Lyon. (2007) “Putting Patients First”: Systematically Distorted Communication and Merck's Marketing of Vioxx. Journal of Applied Communication Research 35:4, 376-398
CrossRef15
Michael Camilleri, Erin C. Dubnansky, Anil K. Rustgi. (2007) Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures in Publications. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 5:3, 268-273.e1
CrossRef16
Duncan C. Thomas, John S. Witte, Sander Greenland. (2007) Dissecting Effects of Complex Mixtures. Epidemiology 18:2, 186-190
CrossRef17
Michael Camilleri, Erin C. Dubnansky, Anil K. Rustgi. (2007) Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures in Publications. Gastroenterology 132:3, 841-847
CrossRef18
H. P. Dietz. (2007) Bias in research and conflict of interest: why should we care?. International Urogynecology Journal 18:3, 241-243
CrossRef19
Scott D Solomon. (2007) Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and cardiovascular risk. Current Opinion in Internal Medicine 6:1, 26-30
CrossRef20
Justin Biddle. (2007) Lessons from the Vioxx Debacle: What the Privatization of Science Can Teach Us About Social Epistemology. Social Epistemology 21:1, 21-39
CrossRef
