The Neverending PR Cluelessness of Pharma

Once again, pharmaceutical companies demonstrate world-class stupidity when it comes to averting negative PR. The latest example comes in the form of retired teacher and sufferer of Parkinson’s disease, Suzanne Davenport, whose story was reported yesterday by Sarah Rubenstein of the Wall Street Journal (and also at the WSJ’s Health Blog). Ms. Davenport and her family are currently seeking compensation from Titan Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, codevelopers of Spheramine* brain implants, which Ms. Davenport received in January 2005 as part of an investigational phase 2 clinical study.

Following the procedure, Ms. Davenport experienced a precipitous, unexpected decline in her clinical status, which has since required premature, continued skilled nursing care. In the WSJ article, both Ms. Davenport’s former neurologist, UCLA Spheramine-study investigator Jeff Bronstein, MD, PhD, and her current Seattle neurologist, John W. Roberts, MD, concur that the Spheramine implantation likely led to her demise. Yet, despite these expert opinions, and statements indicating monetary compensation for study-related injury in Ms. Davenport’s signed UCLA study-consent form, her family has encountered seemingly dilatory tactics from the pharma companies, including possibly disingenuous concerns that Ms. Davenport’s eligibility for Medicaid would be compromised should she receive any compensation (for details, see links to pdf files of letters at the WSJ site).

And now in predictable fashion, Ms. Davenport’s family has retained the services of an attorney, Stephen R. Pappas, and are suing Titan, Bayer HealthCare, and the regents of the University of California, for more than $5 million. Thanks to their own colossal ignorance, these companies are in the position of paying more money than they ever would have, if they had provided timely compensation to Ms. Davenport. And the thick icing on their own craptastic cake is 1) the reluctance of academicians and patients to participate further in their clinical trials and 2) negative coverage from a major national newspaper.