Restoring Study 329: Letter to BMJ
Editorial Note: The posts have gotten slightly out of sequence. This post should have preceded the responses from BMJ. It is the letter to which they were responding. This and other letters are on Study329.org.
8 July 2015
Dr Fiona Godlee
Dear Dr Godlee
Re: “Restoring Study 329: A randomised, controlled trial of the efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in the treatment of adolescent major depression”
I note your earlier comment about BMJ’s risks being ‘more editorial than legal’. Coincidentally when we were looking up Dr Elizabeth Loder’s profile in relation to her concerns about our handling of headache in our adverse events analysis, we became aware of a potential conflict of interest.
BMJ staff have understandably been very careful about any perceived conflict of interest on the part of our team, given that some of us have previously criticized GSK’s Study 329; we now have concerns about Dr Loder’s indirect but significant links with GSK.
- Her hospital (Brigham and Women’s) received over $12 million in research funding from GSK in 2014, up from just over $100,000 in 2003
- Dr Loder has made public statements favourable to GSK products, including: ‘For all of these reasons my mantra is that “You haven’t failed sumatriptan until you have failed to respond to a full dose of injectable sumatriptan given early in an attack!” There is also evidence that combining a triptan with an anti-inflammatory drug might improve the likelihood it will be effective’.
(http://live.washingtonpost.com/how-serious-are-migraines.html ). This article was published just before GSK’s Treximet (combination triptan and anti-inflammatory) came on to the market.
- Dr Loder’s husband, John M. Loder, is a partner in Ropes & Gray, a law firm retained by GSK in the US Department of Justice’s action against them, in which Study 329 was a central element
More recently, the law firm has supported GSK with its difficulties in China
Although, as Dr Loder’s COI declaration at BMJ points out, John Loder’s work is not in the healthcare field, as a partner in Ropes & Gray, he presumably profits directly from such work.
We believe that Dr Loder’s interests have been incompletely declared and that it might have been appropriate for her to recuse herself from involvement in the assessment of our paper to avoid any perception that GSK’s interests were being considered in BMJ’s deliberations.
While the timing for bringing these concerns to your attention is not ideal, we wanted to inform you as soon as possible after we became aware of these potential conflicts.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
On behalf of the RIAT 329 group