Psychiatrist Got $490,000 Pimping For Seroquel, Engaged In Wide Off-Label Use
Back in March, I wrote about a Chicago psychiatrist, Michael Reinstein, who was bugging AstraZeneca for money because he was such a heavy prescriber of Seroquel and who also authored a very dubious study asserting that Seroquel caused patients to lose weight. That’s absolutely counter to most studies of the drug and most patient experiences.
Anyway, today the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica are out with an article on Reinstein and his AZ connection. AZ gave the doctor $490,000 over 10 years to speak on behalf of the drug, even though the company was internally pooh-poohing his science. One researcher quoted in the article recommends that other studies of Reinstein’s should be reviewed by journal editors, given his likely errors in the Seroquel-causes-weight-loss article. The reporters also found one woman who was given Seroquel and put on about 150 pounds and developed diabetes.
Beyond that, take a look at the transcript of Reinstein’s deposition in a lawsuit (it’s on ProPublica’s site). On pages 199 to 200 of the depo (page 51 of the pdf), Reinstein is questioned about off-label prescribing of Seroquel and admits to engaging in a lot of it.
Reinstein specifically states that he prescribed Seroquel off-label for insomnia, bipolar depression, major depression and anxiety. Even more, Reinstein ran a study where he subjected patients to 2,000 mgs. a day of Seroquel, three to four times the highest FDA-approved dosage (600 mgs. a day). What human subjects committee would approve such high dosages? It’s difficult to imagine.
On an ironic personal note, back in the summer I spoke at-length with the ProPublica reporter on this story, Christina Jewett. I broke my own don’t help the media rule because I’ve known Jewett’s work for years (she was at the Sacramento Bee) and because I have a good friend who’s a reporter at ProPublica. Probably the most useful thing I told Jewett was that Reinstein’s above-referenced study had to be deeply flawed (hell, even AZ was admitting as much) and that she ought to press on that and there sure is plenty about the study in the article. The irony is that yesterday I got a rejection email for a job at ProPublica, which told me I wasn’t a good “fit” for them. How could I be a good fit when offering one of their reporters my expertise on atypicals but a bad fit when it comes to reporting? Lame.
Jewett left ProPublica this summer to return to California where she now works at the California Watch, which I guess is a ProPublica for the Golden State. I’m not good enough to be working anywhere of course. Certainly no one in the mainstream media links to my work although a reporter at a major newspaper I won’t name spent about 10 minutes poking through a bunch of my posts on Monday. I have no idea what they were looking for but it will lead to neither credit or a job or anything that will benefit me.
Yesterday afternoon, I got my second job reject of the day, this one for a policy analyst position with the Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus. Hell, they aren’t even going to interview me. It’s like this website has made me toxic when it comes to employment.
Discouraged? Oh yes. Glad I have two graduate degrees? No. They are useless.
Related posts:
Posted in Furious Seasons