By Janet Raloff
So much for confidential peer review.
Last May, a controversial paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reported that a popular diabetes drug—rosiglitazone, sold as Avandia—substantially hikes a user’s risk of heart attack (SN: 6/23/07, p. 397). But according to an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Avandia’s maker knew about the study before it was published. The company—Philadelphia-based GlaxoSmithKline—had a leaked copy, courtesy of a scientist that NEJM had recruited for a peer review of the paper.
“The man who did this is Dr. Steven Haffner,” ranking Finance committee member Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) reported last week, referring to the investigation. Grassley added that Haffner, a physician with the University of Texas Health Science Center (UTHSC) in San Antonio, “confirmed to my investigators that he faxed a draft of the study to GlaxoSmithKline weeks before it was published.”
According to a statement issued by William L. Henrich, dean of medicine at UTHSC-San Antonio, the charges have “just come to light on our campus. We are embarking on a complete investigation.” He added that if Grassley’s charges are confirmed the university expects to take “swift and appropriate action.”
Most troubling, Grassley argues, is the reviewer’s role. By leaking unpublished data, Haffner “violated practically every tenet of independence and integrity held sacred by the major medical journals,” he says.
Calls to Haffner were forwarded to the UTHSC-San Antonio Office of External Affairs.
When Haffner received the UTHSC-San Antonio Presidential Distinguished Scholar Award last year, the university noted that, in terms of federal support, he is among its “highest-funded investigators.” He also received some $75,000 for consulting and speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline, according to government filings that Grassley’s team uncovered.
