Lilly slams Times over trials data charge

Share this article:

Lilly took a sharp tone in responding to a New York Times article that the company said “likely created a strong false impression with readers that Lilly suppresses data.”

The Times article, following on a New England Journal of Medicine piece, claimed that Lilly suppressed Prozac clinical trials data.

“Not only was the Times' story inaccurate when it comes to Prozac—the NEJM article didn't identify a single Prozac study as unpublished—but it also likely created a strong false impression with readers that Lilly suppresses data,” the company said in a news release, concluding: “We clearly have been transparent. The data is publicly available online; we've presented it to healthcare professionals at major medical meetings; and we published it—more than once—in peer-reviewed medical journals. And we remain committed to transparency. All of which we would have told The New York Times…if only they had called and asked.”
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Email Newsletters

MM&M EBOOK: PATIENT ACCESS

Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?