» Drug, Devices, and Supplements

» Physician Accountability

» Consumer Product Safety

» Worker Safety

» Health Care Delivery

» Auto and Truck Safety

» Global Access to Medicines

» Infant Formula Marketing


More Information on Alosetron (Lotronex)

Letter in the Lancet on Alosetron (Lotronex)

This letter, by Health Research Group Researcher Elizabeth Barbehenn, Ph.D., Deputy Director Peter Lurie, M.D., MPH and Director Sidney Wolfe, M.D., appeared in Lancet on December 9, 2000.

Alosetron for irritable bowel syndrome 

Sir — Michael Camilleri and colleagues (March 25, p 1035)[1] report that alosetron is an effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Medical Officer's Review (now available at accessed on Nov 12, 2000), which we originally obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, has led us to question some of the analyses presented in the article.

The graphic techniques used by Camilleri and colleagues greatly exaggerate alosetron's efficacy. Their figure 3 presents the relative difference in pain and discomfort scores from baseline on a 0-4 scale for the treated and placebo groups. Presented this way, the drug seems effective. However, when we plotted the absolute data contained in the Medical Officer's Review, the data points are almost superimposable (figure). The exclusion of the baseline data from Camilleri and colleagues' figure 3, unusual in a graph of this type, has the additional effect of enlarging the Y axis, and creating an apparent greater benefit for the drug.

Trend in absolute pain and discomfort scores


The important finding that efficacy was confined to diarrhoea-predominant patients and was not evident among patients who alternated between diarrhoea and constipation (alternators) is relegated to a single sentence in the results. The FDA used this subgroup analysis as the basis for denying approval of the drug for use in alternators. Instead, Camilleri and colleagues concentrate overwhelmingly on the marginal benefits of the drug in the full study population, which they describe in their report's title as IBS patients, obscuring the fact that they provide no evidence of benefit on the primary outcome variable in constipation-predominant patients (who were excluded) or alternators. This form of data presentation could lead to overprescribing.

Moreover, whether the diarrhoea-predominant patients even had diarrhoea is unclear. The medical officer reviewing the study stated: "Patients considered by investigators to fit the diarrhea-predominant subtype had at baseline ... stool consistency values that were neither loose nor watery."

The Medical Officer's Review is dated Nov 4, 1999, well before Camilleri and colleagues' report went to press. Since five of the six investigators are employees of the pharmaceutical company that generated these data, the Medical Officer's Review should have come to their attention in time to be incorporated into the final draft of the report. These discrepancies raise important questions about data presentation in studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.


[1] Camilleri M, Northcutt AR, Kong S, Dukes GE, McSorley D, Mangel AW. Efficacy and safety of alosetron in women with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.  Lancet  2000; 355:  1035-40. 

Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.