Last Updated Jul 21, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
In 2006, Schering pled guilty to criminal conspiracy to make false statements to the FDA in that agency's probe of the company. It paid a $180 million fine. Schering had promoted the drugs for cancers that were not indicated by the FDA, and where the drugs had only marginal effectiveness. Among the techniques Schering used, the judge wrote:
- Using continuing medical education programs ("CME's") directed and controlled by Schering sales representatives to promote off-label uses of Temodar and Intron;
- Devising a program, dubbed the Consulting Care Network, where Schering-paid physicians would respond to queries by physicians by promoting Schering drugs for off-label use;
- Marketing the Subject Drugs for off-label use at national and regional meetings of doctors and the health care industry;
- Targeting doctors who prescribed competing drugs with a "barrage of off-label marketing techniques";
- Paying doctors who prescribed the Subject Drugs for off-label uses to speak at dinner lectures and other functions;
- Entering into paid consulting agreements with physicians for which little or no work was required; and
- Providing research and educational grants to Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) ostensibly to induce them to place the Subject Drugs on TPP formularies.
The judge didn't buy it because the Teamsters didn't specifically prove that the drugs were ineffective on the patients who took them:
There is no question that the illegal conduct to which Schering Sales pled guilty represents this corporate Defendant's reprehensible disregard for the vital role the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of consumer pharmaceutical products. ... [But] neither the individual plaintiffs nor the TPPs suffer cognizable injury when they pay for drugs which are marketed off-label...Download a copy of the ruling in Teamsters v. Schering Plough here.
- Merck and Schering Q2: Who Needs This Merger More?
- Merck/Schering Vytorin Settlement Shows New Trend: Government Control of Drug Ads
- Leerink Bets Abbott's Niaspan Beat Merck/Schering's Zetia in Mystery Trial
- UPDATED: Why Zetia Researchers' Silence on Ending of Niaspan Trial Is Unfair to Merck
- Sanofi Eats Merck's Vaccine Business for Lunch; Hopes Pinned on "Gardasil for Boys"
- Merck Reps Infuriated by Miscommunications Over New Singulair Warnings
- FDA Says Gardasil May Cause Fainting; The Stats Say It Doesn't
- Why Merck Will Win Its Vioxx Supreme Court Case
- Judge Rules Schering Employees' Anonymous Posts on Cafe Pharma Can Be Used as Evidence
- Merck Rep Who Was on 'Survivor' Said of Vioxx: "I Knew Damn Well It Was Dangerous"
- Why Schering-Plough's Nasonex Bee Is to Blame for FDA's New Drug Ad Rules
- Schering CEO Hassan's Merck Payout Is Millions Greater Than WSJ Thinks It Is
- J&J vs. Merck and Schering: Who Is Most Desperate in This Bizarre Love Triangle?
- Does J&J's Move on Remicade Pact Threaten Schering CEO Hassan's $51 Mil. Merger Payout?
- Top Schering Execs Could Get $132 Million in Merck Deal Jackpot