In March of 2009, Doctor Scott S. Reuben, a prominent anesthesiologist and former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts, was accused of faking studies that were published in several anesthesiology journals betweenn1996 and 2008.

Dr. Reuben had been a paid spokesperson for Pfizer and the company paid for some of his research. Pfizer's Celebrex and Lyrica, as well as Bextra and Vioxx, which have since been withdrawn from sale-received positive reports from Dr. Reuben. He also claimed positive findings for using the antidepressant Effexor XR, from Wyeth, as a painkiller.

Wyeth said it wasn't aware of any financial relationship between its company and the doctor. In a press release, Pfizer claimed it had no prior knowledge of Dr. Reuben's alleged actions and were disappointed to learn of the accusations.

Dr. Reuben, now 50, has been accused of falsifying data for more than a decade. In one case, he forged the signature of another doctor on some reports. The journal Anesthesia & Analgesia is reporting articles containing the questionable data go back to 1996.

Reuben had been a high profile and much-respected researcher. He championed the use of anti-inflammatory drugs known as COX2 inhibitors and claimed his studies showed reduced post-surgical pain and dependence on steroids and addictive drugs.

Dr. Reuben's studies affected the type of pain relief offered to millions of people around the world. Because his data was so widely relied upon by other researchers, the integrity of an untold number of related studies is now called into question. Clinical trials of drugs that relied on data from Reuben's work may have to be repeated as a result of this scandal.

In addition, many doctors relied on his studies when determining what prescriptions to write for their patients. Two of the COX2 inhibitors he reportedly falsified favorable data for, Pfizer's Bextra and Vioxx, became some of the most widely prescribed pain killers. They were removed from the market in 2006 after evidence showed they increased the risk of fatal strokes and heart attacks. Vioxx was further discredited when it became known that some studies signed by professors and medical researches claiming they had written the findings were actually written by Merck employees.

Fraud in the handling of drug research affects everyone participating in the use of prescriptions for health care, both medical professionals and patients. It is undoubtedly troubling for doctors who must rely on published studies to stay informed about new developments in pain care. It's troubling and also dangerous for patients who rely on their doctors.

I was personally involved as a patient advocate for an elderly woman whose doctor suggested, after reading a study, that she try Vioxx for her arthritis pain. During a nightmarish two-month trial of the drug, she suffered from many side effects. Her condition became so severe it was necessary to place her in a nursing home for the last month. When her doctor finally ordered her to stop taking Vioxx, all negative symptoms withdrew and she was able to return to caring for herself in her own home. Her doctor, a deeply caring practitioner, told me he had a hard time assessing that Vioxx had been the problem "because all the reports on it have been so favorable."

As a pain patient, you must always be aware that studies can be faked and doctors, no matter how well intentioned, can be misguided. They can also make mistakes. Always keep in mind that YOU are the only expert on your body and it's condition. If your body is not responding well to a drug, that's not a fault in you. That's the wrong drug–no matter what any study says.

### Bonnie Boots publishes Pain Health News to provide information, motivation and understadning to people livingw ith chronic pain. To keep in touch with her, use the subscribe form in the upper right corner.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Doctor Admits Pain Studies Were Frauds, Hospital Says (nytimes.com)
• Pfizer will list doctor payments (money.cnn.com)