Neurontin Settlement Money Funding Research On Impact Of Drug Marketing

Kaiser Permanente is developing physician education tools to enhance prescribing practices using funds from Pfizer's Neurontin settlement.

The Clinical Research Unit at Kaiser Permanente Colorado has been granted close to $400,000 from the Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program resulting from a 2004 settlement following an investigation into unlawful marketing practices.

The program is funded through the $430 mil. that Pfizer has paid to settle charges that Warner-Lambert promoted the anti-epileptic Neurontin (gabapentin) for off-label uses (¹ (Also see "Rx Comparative Studies Will Be Funded By Neurontin Settlement" - Pink Sheet, 17 May, 2004.), p. 6).

Kaiser Colorado, one of 24 sites to receive funding as part of the 50-state settlement, will use the grant money to assess the educational needs of physicians and evaluate how pharmaceutical marketing affects physicians' prescribing practices.

The company plans to create a web-based curriculum for healthcare providers over the next two years.

The grant program represents a novel effort to direct settlements gained from a pharmaceutical lawsuit toward addressing the underlying conduct of the case, reminiscent of the use of big tobacco settlements for smoking cessation education.

The grants are intended to "fund programs designed to provide health care professionals and consumers information relating to prescription drugs, including the way in which drugs are marketed," according to the Center for Evidence-Based Policy at Oregon Health and Science University, the administrator of the grant program. Until early 2006, the program was administered by the Public Health Trust.

Recently issued grants aim to improve prescribing practices by educating healthcare providers about drug development, increasing physician awareness of marketing techniques, providing physicians with strategies for evaluating sources of drug data and offering access to unbiased drug information.

The initial round of grants will be used to develop and disseminate interactive, evidence-based and adaptable curricula for physicians to use in evaluating prescription drug marketing information.

The curriculum will be disseminated through lectures, online and in-class courses, workshops or conferences and must include measures for evaluation.

The 24 grant recipients were selected from 59 applicants by a special committee of state Attorneys General. Seeking to invest additional resources in prescriber education, the committee is soliciting applications due in June for four additional grants.

Other grantees include the American Medical Association, which plans to educate medical students about making cost-effective and evidence-based prescribing decisions, and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, which will test the effectiveness of academic detailing to reduce unnecessary use of heavily-prescribed prescriptions and educate clinicians on industry marketing practices.

The first round of grants, which distributed roughly $9 mil. of the $21 mil. to be awarded through the program, focuses on prescriber education. The second round will highlight consumer education, particularly the conditions for which Neurontin is prescribed.

A request for applications for the next group will be issued mid-summer with decisions anticipated in late fall or early winter.

Alternatively, efforts have been made recently to counter criticism of the pharmaceutical industry's marketing practices.

In an endeavor to promote the "academic legitimacy" of industry's marketing and advertising, The Coalition for Healthcare Communication is working to establish a foundation to support research that can be used to counter criticism of pharmaceutical adverting and marketing practices.

The CHC hopes to emphasize the value of drug marketing and communication and provide support to policy programs. In 2004, the coalition requested that FDA establish a grant program to fund research on the presentation of risk in direct-to-consumer advertising.

Pfizer remains a target of Neurontin-related litigation, and is facing a number of cases brought by insurers, patients, and a physician who participated in company-sponsored continuing medical education programs.