(NaturalNews) A health researcher who has taken consulting money from GlaxoSmithKline admits that he tipped the company off that a study was about to be published showing that the diabetes drug Avandia significantly raised patients' risk of heart attack and death, according to an article published in the journal ,
Nature.
In early 2007, the
New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) contacted Dr. Stephen Haffner, a researcher at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and asked him to peer
review a study by Dr. Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic. The journal was considering for publication Nissen's now-famous study, which showed that
patients taking Avandia had a 43 percent higher risk of suffering a
heart attack.
In the peer review process, researchers in the same field attempt to find flaws in the methodology or analysis of new
studies, to ensure that all studies published meet good scientific standards. Reviewers promise to keep all
research confidential before publication.
Haffner has admitted that he faxed a copy of Nissen's study to a
GlaxoSmithKline employee 17 days ahead of the publication date. Haffner knew the employee due to his own prior work studying
Avandia.
The Senate Finance Committee has launched an investigation into Haffner's actions and sent a letter to GlaxoSmithKline asking for more information about the incident.
"According to documents filed at the FDA, GlaxoSmithKline has paid Dr. Haffner around $75,000 in consulting fees and speaking honoraria since 1999," committee member Charles Grassley of Iowa wrote. "Did GlaxoSmithKline contact the NEJM to report this violation of publishing
ethics?"
GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson Nancy Pekarek told the press that Haffner contacted the company with questions about the study's methodology, requesting statistical assistance. Pekarek said that the company did not respond to Haffner, nor did it report his actions to the NEJM.
The University of
Texas Health Science Center announced that it was investigating Haffner's actions. The NEJM said it would handle any ethics violations, such as a breach of confidential peer-review process, privately.
Have comments on this article? Post them here:
people have commented on this article.
Email this article to a friend
Share this article on: 
Now Available from 
