Search

Key origins of the opioid crisis in the US lie in some pharmaceutical companies' substantial efforts to sell prescription painkillers. To legitimize opioids, the companies built up a body of medical science and opinions, and channels with which to communicate. Archival searches found 876 contracts that together provide information on how Mallinckrodt, an opioid manufacturer, attempted the ghost-management of medicine. These records-available because of litigation-involved contract research organizations, medical education and communication companies, publishers, professional societies, researchers, and other people who could be Mallinckrodt's agents. Together, they produced and circulated scientific messages to increase physicians' comfort with prescribing opioids. This article gives an overview of that activity, as seen in the contracts and related documents., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Bernisson and Sismondo.)

Despite little evidence supporting its superiority to glucocorticoid therapy, use and expenditures for repository corticotropin (rACTH) injection (H.P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt) have increased dramatically in the last 5 years, particularly among a small number of nephrologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists. Recently, the manufacturer justified the extremely high and rapidly increasing cost of rACTH by citing the ongoing need to generate clinical data to support its use. We test this assertion by investigating the quality and provenance of the evidence likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. We identified all completed, in-progress, and proposed studies of rACTH registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. 75 studies representing 2,953 participants met inclusion criteria. Studies addressed primarily nephrologic (n = 23), rheumatologic (n = 28), and neurologic (n =22) indications. Of the 23 studies proposed for renal indications (enrollment, 33 ± 49 [mean ± SD]), 11 were not randomized, 8 compared only different rACTH treatment regimens, and 4 compared rACTH to placebo. No studies of rACTH proposed for renal indications included an rACTH-free arm receiving active treatment (ie, another form of immunosuppression). We conclude that evidence emerging in the foreseeable future is unlikely to broadly support rACTH use over lower-cost glucocorticoid-based alternatives for renal indications., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)