The arrest of a Maryland physician who regularly advocated for the use of Xyrem, a narcolepsy drug, raises questions about the line between free speech and unauthorized promotion. Physicians regularly discuss off-label uses for commonly prescribed medications in continuing medical education (CME) courses, lectures and events.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals paid the physician, Dr. Peter Gleason, $100,000 last year to promote the product. He did his job well, but may have been a bit overly enthusiastic about the drug's safety profile. At one point he said Xyrem was safer than "table salt," which earned him derision from his peers.
So, are there limits to what a physician can say about the off-label uses of a medication? If Gleason is convicted, what will this mean for CME and other pharmaceutical marketing activities? To learn more, please see this article from the New York Times.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals paid the physician, Dr. Peter Gleason, $100,000 last year to promote the product. He did his job well, but may have been a bit overly enthusiastic about the drug's safety profile. At one point he said Xyrem was safer than "table salt," which earned him derision from his peers.
So, are there limits to what a physician can say about the off-label uses of a medication? If Gleason is convicted, what will this mean for CME and other pharmaceutical marketing activities? To learn more, please see this article from the New York Times.
The freedom of speech should have some limits. There is such thing as absolute freedom. As far as I have heard the distribution of Xyrem will be tightly restricted, but people who suffer of episodes of cataplexy will try it.
Posted by: Melinda | August 10, 2006 11:42 AM | Permalink to Comment