Ineffective Pediatric Use

Antidepressants Celexa & Lexapro Ineffective for Childhood Depression

On January 24, 2018, Baum Hedlund 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.

Karen Wagner, M.D. Lead “author” of Celexa Study MD-18
Karen Wagner, M.D.
Lead “author” of Celexa Study MD-18

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 Baum Hedlund attorney Brent Wisner.

Forest Labs Celexa and Lexapro Court Docs Unsealed

The Exhibits to the January 24, 2018 letter and Memorandum sent by Baum Hedlund 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








Exh. 1 Department of Justice Press Release Forest Celexa Lexapro Misled FDA Docs

Exh. 2 Criminal Plea Agreement

Exh. 3 Criminal Information

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

  • Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto Co. $2 Billion
  • Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Co. $289.2 Million
  • Pharmaceutical Settlement $105 Million
  • Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. $80 Million
  • Paxil Pediatric Class Action $63 Million
  • Third-Party Payer Class Action $40 Million
  • Defective Drug Class Action $28 Million
  • Whistleblower Settlement $18 Million

    $18 million settlement for Boeing government overcharging on aircraft maintenance

  • A Major US Plane Crash $17.5 Million
  • Commercial Truck Accident $15 Million

    $15 million settlement for a person gravely injured by a major truck company

  • Best Law Firms 2021
    Best Law Firms 2021

    The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

  • National Trial Lawyers Top 100
    National Trial Lawyers Top 100

    The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, 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.

  • Elite Trial Lawyers
    Elite Trial Lawyers

    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.

  • AV Top Ranked Law Firm
    AV Top Ranked Law Firm

    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®.

  • Listed in Best Lawyers
    Listed in Best Lawyers

    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.

  • Verdicts Hall of Fame
    Verdicts Hall of Fame

    The National Law Journal inducted Baum Hedlund 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.

  • AV Rated
    AV Rated

    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.

  • Super Lawyers
    Super Lawyers

    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.

  • National Board of Trial Advocacy
    National Board of Trial Advocacy

    The National Board of Trial Advocacy is dedicated to bettering the quality of trial advocacy in our nation’s courtrooms and helping consumers find experienced and highly qualified trial lawyers.

  • Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers
    Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers

    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.

  • Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
    Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States.  Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements.

  • Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
    Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers

    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 Reviews

What Our Clients Are Saying
  • Top Legal Minds in the Country

    “The Baum, Hedlund firm has some of the top legal minds in the country; they are driven, determined, trustworthy, ethical and passionate.”

    - From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
  • I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm

    “Multiple lawyers recommended Baum Hedlund to me and I have been consistently impressed with the quality of their work.”

    - Best Law Firms Survey
  • Diligent & Professional Representation

    “Thanks to your efforts I was able to recover from a tragic experience and turn my life around for the best.”

    - W.T.
  • Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List

    “A special thank you to your Spanish-speaking staff for the extra effort put into this case. The language barrier was never a problem, and we are so very thankful to them. Your name holds much respect in our family.”

    - G.C. & C.C
  • We Have Never Met a More Wonderful Group of People

    “It is obvious that the people at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, & Goldman believe in what they do. And that you all really care about your clients.”

    - The B. Family

Contact Us Today

No Fees Unless We Win
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • +1
    Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please enter your city.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.