FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 354:1193 March 16, 2006 Number 11 Next

PDF PDA Full Text Supplementary Material Editorial by Curfman, G. D. Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

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.

Source Information

This letter was published at www.nejm.org on February 22, 2006.

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. [Free Full Text]
2. 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. [Free Full Text]
3. 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. [Free Full Text]
6. Reicin A, Shapiro D. Response to expression of concern regarding VIGOR study. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1198-1199. 

PDF PDA Full Text Supplementary Material Editorial by Curfman, G. D. Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Pitrou, I., Boutron, I., Ahmad, N., Ravaud, P. (2009). Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Intern Med 169: 1756-1761 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wynia, M., Boren, D. (2009). Better regulation of industry-sponsored clinical trials is long overdue.. J Law Med Ethics 37: 410-419  
• Schilling, L. M., Dellavalle, R. P. (2009). Dealing With Unanticipated Mortality in a Large Randomized Clinical Trial of Topical Tretinoin. Arch Dermatol 145: 76-76 [Full Text]  
• Chan, A.-W., Hrobjartsson, A., Jorgensen, K. J, Gotzsche, P. C, Altman, D. G (2008). Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ 337: a2299-a2299 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Chalkidou, K., Lord, J., Fischer, A., Littlejohns, P. (2008). Evidence-Based Decision Making: When Should We Wait For More Information?. Health Aff (Millwood) 27: 1642-1653 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Troy, D. E., Gottlieb, S., Kesselheim, A. S., Avorn, J. (2008). Pharmaceutical Promotion and First Amendment Rights. NEJM 359: 536-537 [Full Text]  
• Greenland, S. (2007). Commentary: On 'Quality in epidemiological research: should we be submitting papers before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis generating research?'. Int J Epidemiol 36: 944-945 [Full Text]  
• Psaty, B. M., Charo, R. A. (2007). FDA Responds to Institute of Medicine Drug Safety Recommendations--In Part. JAMA 297: 1917-1920 [Full Text]  
• Criner, G. J. (2007). Framing the Forum: Medical Ethics in Large-Scale, Interventional Respiratory Clinical Trials. Proc Am Thorac Soc 4: 171-175 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Coultas, D. (2007). Ethical Considerations in the Interpretation and Communication of Clinical Trial Results. Proc Am Thorac Soc 4: 194-199 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Laine, C., Goodman, S. N., Griswold, M. E., Sox, H. C. (2007). Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust. ANN INTERN MED 146: 450-453 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Glick, M. (2006). Opprobrium or opportunity?. Journal of the American Dental Association 137: 1484-1486 [Full Text]  
• Zhang, J., Ding, E. L., Song, Y. (2006). Adverse Effects of Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors on Renal and Arrhythmia Events: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials. JAMA 296: 1619-1632 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• DeAngelis, C. D. (2006). The Influence of Money on Medical Science. JAMA 296: 996-998 [Full Text]  
• Psaty, B. M., Rennie, D. (2006). Clinical Trial Investigators and Their Prescribing Patterns: Another Dimension to the Relationship Between Physician Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry. JAMA 295: 2787-2790 [Full Text]  
• Dieppe, P. (2006). Complicity theory: an explanation for the ;coxib problem'?. JRSM 99: 273-274 [Full Text]