Antidepressants Celexa & Lexapro Ineffective for Childhood Depression
On January 24, 2018, Wisner Baum submitted a 53-page memorandum along with 79 supporting exhibits to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts detailing how Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Forest Laboratories Inc. (both acquired by Allergan in 2014) deliberately misled the DOJ during its investigation of the drug maker and 2010 settlement of the criminal and civil charges brought against the company.
The government’s investigation of Forest focused on the company’s illegal off-label promotion of a supposedly positive Celexa study (MD-18 or “Wagner study”) and suppression of a negative Celexa study (94404 or the “Lundbeck study,” also known as the “European Study). Documents unearthed during the course of a series of civil lawsuits in Boston have revealed a much deeper deception than the government ever suspected. The government’s case was just the tip of the iceberg.
Read our letter and memo calling on the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute Forest Labs (now Allergan)
Forest Pled Guilty to Civil and Criminal Charges For Off-Label Promotion of Celexa and Lexapro For Use in Children and Adolescents
In 2010, Forest entered into a series of settlement agreements with the USAO for the District of Massachusetts. As part of the first agreement, Forest pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction and two counts of distributing a misbranded drug under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The third count related to Forest’s promotion of Celexa for use in children and adolescents between 1998 and 2002. Forest paid more than $39 million in criminal fines for Celexa’s off-label promotion.
The second agreement resolved various qui tam False Claims Act lawsuits alleging pharmaceutical fraud through off-label promotion for both Celexa and Lexapro for children and adolescents between 1998 and 2005. Forest paid over $149 million to settle the civil claims.
Lastly, Forest entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement to address its promotional misconduct.
Each agreement was contingent on the others and required complete honesty from Forest. However, according to unsealed Celexa and Lexapro court docs, the scope and extent of Forest’s fraud was not properly disclosed before the 2010 settlement agreements. Per the documents below, Forest misrepresented material facts underlying the USAO’s investigation.
How Did Forest Mislead the FDA and DOJ About Celexa and Lexapro?
First, A Primer on How Clinical Trials to Test the Efficacy of Medications Work
A drug’s efficacy is determined using double-blind randomized controlled trials (“DBRCTs”). A DBRCT involves the systematic comparison of patients taking a drug and patients taking a placebo. Patients enrolled in the clinical trials are randomly assigned into two groups. One group takes the drug and the other takes a placebo. However, neither the investigators nor the patient know which group each patient is in, i.e., they are “double blind.” Once the study is complete, the benefit observed in the two groups is compared, and if the patients taking the drug meaningfully outperform the patients in the placebo group, the clinical trial is considered positive. If the drug does not outperform placebo, it is called negative.
If either the investigator or the patient is unblinded during the clinical trial, it invalidates the data since there is no way to determine whether the effects observed are caused by the drug as opposed to other factors. Blinding is intended to limit the occurrence of conscious and unconscious bias in the conduct and interpretation of a clinical trial. If either the investigator or the patient knows they are receiving the drug, that knowledge will likely influence their assessment. Numerous studies have confirmed this fact. Blinding is a vital factor in medication research.
Forest Regulatory Affairs Manager: ‘Part of My Job is to Create “Masterful” Euphemisms to Protect Medical and Marketing’
A central feature of the government’s prosecution of Forest involved the promotion and dissemination of Forest’s “positive” Celexa Study MD-18 and the suppression of its negative Celexa Study 94404. What the government did not know is that MD-18 only achieved a positive result through the improper inclusion of nine patients in the study for whom “the blind was unmistakenly [sic] violated” or, as Forest’s medical director put it, who were “automatically unblinded” due to a dispensing error.
Upon learning about the dispensing error mishap, Forest informed the FDA that the unblinded patients would appropriately be excluded from the final analysis. But, when Forest realized the unblinded patients would need to be included to produce a positive result (i.e. show that Celexa was better than a placebo or sugar pill), Forest put the unblinded patients back into the MD-18 analysis and falsely told the FDA the patients were not actually unblinded.
In a draft letter to be sent to the FDA regarding the dispensing error, Amy Rubin, a Forest Regulatory Affairs Manager, characterized the error that caused the patients to become unblinded as only having “the potential to cause patient bias.” Dr. Charles Flicker, the Senior Medical Director overseeing MD-18, did not approve of this language:
“Altho ‘potential to cause bias’ is a masterful stroke of euphemism, I would be a little more up front about the fact that the integrity of the blind was unmistakenly [sic] violated.”
Rubin’s response to Dr. Flicker:
“Thanks for the compliement [sic]. Part of my job is to create ‘masterful’ euphemisms to protect Medical and Marketing.”
“Not only was the disclosure to the FDA dishonest, according to a Forest Regulatory Affairs manager, it was her job to mislead the FDA and protect medical and marketing,” says Wisner Baumattorney Brent Wisner.
Forest Labs Celexa and Lexapro Court Docs Unsealed
The Exhibits to the January 24, 2018 letter and Memorandum sent by Wisner Baum to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts (which include court documents obtained in discovery and unsealed over Forest’s objection, as well as deposition testimony of Forest employees and former FDA staffers, etc.) are posted below.
Table of Contents
PART II: CELEXA PEDIATRIC CLINICAL TRIALS
Celexa Study 94404 Was a Negative Clinical Trial
Table 1 — Celexa Study 94404 Efficacy Results
Celexa Study MD-18 Was a Negative Clinical Trial, but Forest Misled the
FDA about the Results
Table 2 – Celexa Study MD-18 Efficacy Results
- General Overview of MD-18 Study
- At the Beginning of the Trial, a Packaging Error Caused Nine Patients, and their Investigators, to Become Unblinded
- Celexa Study Dispensing Diagram
- Forest Knowingly Misled the FDA about the Nature of the Unblinding by Using, As Forest Regulatory Affairs Manager Put It, “Masterful Euphemisms” to “Protect Medical and Marketing”
- Despite Misrepresenting the Unblinding to the FDA, Forest Promised to Exclude the Data from the Patients from Its Primary Efficacy Analysis
- Forest Reneged on its Promise to Exclude the Unblinded Patients from the Primary Efficacy Results and, Again, Misrepresented the Unblinding in MD-18’s Final Study Report
- The FDA Never Fully Considered the Unblinding Issue and a Reasonable Regulator at the FDA Could Review this New Information and Conclude Study MD-18 Was Negative
Forest Also Misled the FDA about the Results of the Secondary Endpoints
Table 3 — Comparison of MD-18 Study Report & Dr. Heart Medical Review
PART III: FOREST USED FALSE RESULTS FROM MD-18 TO PROMOTE PEDIATRIC USE OF CELEXA AND LEXAPRO
PART IV: THE LEXAPRO PEDIATRIC TRIALS
Lexapro Study MD-15 Was a Negative Clinical Trial
Table 4 – Lexapro Study MD-15 Efficacy Results
- Lexapro Study MD-32 Was a “Positive” Clinical Trial for Adolescents, but Did Not Show a Meaningful Difference between Lexapro and Placebo
PART V: FOREST LEVERAGED THE FALSE RESULTS OF MD-18 TO OBTAIN AN ADOLESCENT INDICATION FOR LEXAPRO
PART VI: FOREST USED THE FALSE ASSERTION THAT MD-18 WAS POSITIVE AND THE FDA’s APPROVAL FOR LEXAPRO TO NEGOTIATE REDUCED PENALTIES IN USAO CASE
Exh. 1 Department of Justice Press Release Forest Celexa Lexapro Misled FDA Docs
Exh. 2 Criminal Plea Agreement
Exh. 4 Civil Settlement Agreement
Exh. 5 Forest Side Letter Agreement
Exh. 6 Corporate Integrity Agreement
Exh. 7 2016 Deposition Gerard Azzari (redacted)
Exh. 7a Azzari Deposition Excerpts
Exh. 8 2017 Deposition Thomas Laughren
Exh. 8a Laughren Deposition Excerpts
Exh. 9 CIT MD-18 Citalopram Pediatric Depression Study Report Excerpts
Exh. 10 Celexa Product Manager Goetjen Email to Bill Heydorn
Exh. 11 2016 Deposition William Heydorn
Exh. 11a Heydorn Deposition Excerpts
Exh. 12 2016 Deposition Steven Closter (redacted)
Exh. 12a Closter Deposition Excerpts
Exh. 13 Draft of Varner Letter with Flicker Hand Written Comments MDL FORP0168118
Exh. 14 Memo Regarding Deviation Investigation MDL FORP0206957
Exh. 15 Memo Regarding Deviation Report MDL FORP0206959
Exh. 16 Email and Attached Fax Sent to Investigators Regarding Unblinding MDL FORP0168119
Exh. 17 Email Preparing Varner Letter First with Attachment
Exh. 18 Email Preparing Varner Letter
Exh. 19 Varner Letter to Doctor Katz at FDA Regarding Unblinding
Exh. 20 Email Regarding CIT MD-18 Citalopram Pediatric Depression Study
Exh. 21 Email Regarding Notes from Conference October 4
Exh. 22 Doctor Hearst (FDA) Medical Review
Exh. 23 2001 Press Release Regarding Wagner American College Neuropsychopharmacology ACNP Meeting Presentation
Exh. 25 Email Regarding American College Neuropsychopharmacology ACNP Meeting Pediatrics Abstract
Exh. 26 Emails Regarding Wagner American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ACCAP Meeting
Exh. 27 Email Regarding Manuscript for American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ACCAP Meeting
Exh. 28 Selection of Off Label Call Notes
Exh. 29 Lexapro Tactical Presentation (2002)
Exh. 30 FDA Guidance for Industry E10 Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials
Exh. 31 FDA Guidance for Industry E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials
Exh. 32 Ghooi Assessment and Classification Protocol Deviations 2016
Exh. 33 George Data Fraud in Clinical Trials
Exh. 34 FDA Guidance for Industry Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials
Exh. 35 94404 Integrated Clinical Study Report Citalopram Adolescent Depression Excerpts
Exh. 36 Initial Disclosure of 94404 Integrated Clinical Study Report Citalopram Adolescent Depression Results
Exh. 37 Email Regarding 94404 Integrated Clinical Study Report Citalopram Adolescent Depression Headline Results
Exh. 38 Excerpts of 2007 Deposition William Heydorn
Exh. 39 Email Regarding Publications for Pediatric Manuscript
Exh. 40 New York Times Medicines Data Gap
Exh. 41 Press Release Forest Discusses Disclosure of Citalopram Clinical Trial
Exh. 42 94404 Integrated Clinical Study Report Citalopram Adolescent Depression Publication
Exh. 43 CIT MD-18 Citalopram Pediatric Depression Study Protocol
Exh. 44 Emails Regarding Urgent CIT MD-18 Citalopram Pediatric Depression Study
Exh. 45 2016 Deposition Charles Flicker
Exh. 45a Flicker Deposition Excerpts
Exh. 46 Jureidini Expert Report
Exh. 47 Glenmullen Expert Report
Exh. 48 Email Regarding CIT MD-18 Citalopram Pediatric Depression Study Drug
Exh. 49 Lexapro Approvable Letter for Adolescent Indication
Exh. 50 Draft with Flicker Hand Written Comments to CIT MD-18 Citalopram Pediatric Depression Study
Exh. 51 FDA Letter Denying Supplimental New Drug Application for Pediatric Major Depressive Disorder
Exh. 52 Thomas Laughren (FDA) Memo Regarding Recommendation for Non-Approval
Exh. 53 Excerpt of 2013 Deposition of Thomas Laughren
Exh. 54 Email Regarding Pediatric Targets
Exh. 55 Email Regarding American College of Physicians American Society of Internal Medicine ACP ASIM
Exh. 56 Email Regarding Wagner Hot Topics Slides
Exh. 57 Excerpts of 2015 Deposition of Natasha Mitchner
Exh. 58 Wager Continuing Medical Education CME Slides
Exh. 59 Emails Regarding Second Draft of Pediatric Manuscript
Exh. 60 Emails Regarding Citalopram
Exh. 61 Email Regarding American College Neuropsychopharmacology ACNP Pediatrics Abstract
Exh. 62 Emails Regarding Update on American College Neuropsychopharmacology ACNP Press Releases
Exh. 63 Wagner Citalopram for Major Depression in Children and Adolescents (Celexa)
Exh. 64 Editors Note Regarding Wagner Publication
Exh. 65 Transcript of Arraignment
Exh. 66 2016 Azzari Deposition Excerpts
Exh. 66a 2016 Deposition of Gerard Azzari
Exh. 67 Excerpts of MD-15 Study Report Efficacy in Pediatric Depression
Exh. 68 Letter from FDA Regarding Questions by Forest
Exh. 69 Excerpts of MD-32 Study Report Escitalopram Pediatric Major Depressive Disorder
Exh. 70 Defining a Clinically Meaningful Effect
Exh. 71 Emslie Escitalopram in the Treatment of Adolescent Depression (Lexapro)
Exh. 72 Email Regarding BLANK (with attachment)
Exh. 73 Email Regarding DRAFT Lexapro Road Map
Exh. 74 Medical Review by Roberta Glass FDA
Exh. 75 Team Leader Review Lexapro for Adolescents FDA
Exh. 76 Statistical Review and Evaluation Lexapro for Adolescents FDA
Exh. 77 Laughren Memo Regarding Approval for Lexapro
Exh. 78 Linkedin Profile for Doctor Thomas Laughren
Exh. 79 Psychatric News June 17, 2016
Letter and Memo to United States Attorney’s Office Massachusetts
Toxic Torts $2.0 Billion Verdict
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s.
Pharmaceutical Settlement $105 Million Settlement
Wisner Baum obtained $105 million on behalf of multiple clients involved in a pharmaceutical negligence case.
Whistleblower Settlement $18 Million Settlement
Wisner Baum secured an $18 million settlement against the Boeing Company for overcharging the U.S. government on aircraft maintenance.
A Major US Plane Crash $17.5 Million Settlement
Wisner Baum obtained a $17.5 million settlement on behalf of a client who was killed in a major U.S. plane crash.
Commercial Truck Accident $15 Million Settlement
Wisner Baum secured a $15 million settlement for a person gravely injured by a major truck company.
Commercial Truck Accident $8.5 Million Verdict
Wisner Baum secured a $8.5 million wrongful death verdict against the food industry company, Tyson Foods, for the wrongful death of a young man.
A ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” is widely regarded by both client and legal professionals as a significant honor. It is considered the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere.
Wisner Baum is proud to be a sponsor of The Truck Safety Coalition, a a group of caring individuals dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes. Our support enables them to help families and save lives.
Law360 recognizes law firms that have a strong regional presence, working on important matters within their home state. “[Wisner Baum] possesses a David v. Goliath-sized slingshot while seeking justice for everyday citizens it believes were harmed or killed through corporate wrongdoing.”
NLJ and American Lawyer Media honor law firms and attorneys as Elite Trial Lawyers for their cutting-edge legal work on behalf of plaintiffs in practice areas ranging from mass torts to securities litigation.
Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.
Less than one-half of one percent of firms across the nation have achieved this ranking. A firm must have a high percentage of lawyers who have achieved the prestigious AV® Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell®.
The National Law Journal inducted Wisner Baum into the Verdicts Hall of Fame for obtaining the $2 billion landmark verdict in the Roundup cancer case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto. The verdict was #1 in California and #2 in the U.S. in 2019 and is #9 in American history.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Wisner Baum, the Miller Firm and Audet & Partners with the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award (in the Mass Torts category) for their work in the groundbreaking case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Company.
An AV® rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence. The rating signifies the highest legal ability, and very high adherence to professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence.
Wisner Baum is proud to have all of its lawyers listed in Avvo, a legal directory connecting people in need of legal services with lawyers and connecting lawyers to lawyers. Eight of our attorneys have earned a 10.0 perfect rating with Avvo.
CA and USA
TopVerdict.com ranks our $2 billion verdict in Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto as the biggest verdict in California and the second largest verdict in the U.S. in 2019. It is the ninth largest verdict in U.S. history.
Published annually, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list recognizes the “best of the best” in this area of the law through nominations, research, and review by a board of their peers.
In 2020, Law360 honored the law firms ”behind the litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry.” It recognized our success in several landmark cases.
In 2018, our $289 million Johnson v. Monsanto verdict was the largest personal injury verdict in California. TopVerdict.com also ranked it #2 among all verdicts in California and #10 in the nation.
The Bar Register is the definitive guide to the most distinguished law firms in America. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field.
Firm ReviewsWhat Our Clients Are Saying
I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm- Best Law Firms Survey
They Are About Changing the Systems...- Kim Witczak
Top Legal Minds in the Country- From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
Diligent & Professional Representation- W.T.
Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List- G.C. & C.C