Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Could Drug Ads Be Bad for Your Health?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Roman Bystrianyk - 30 Jan 2007 15:12 GMT
DAN CHILDS, "Could Drug Ads Be Bad for Your Health?", ABC News,
January 30, 2007,
Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2833516&page=1

Do you experience confusion? Anxiety? Feelings that your life is out
of your control?

Televised advertisements for prescription drugs may be partly to
blame, new research suggests.

A study published in the current issue of the journal Annals of Family
Medicine examined 38 different pharmaceutical advertisements that ran
during peak television viewing times. Researchers found that while the
overwhelming majority of the ads made arguments for the use of drugs,
only about a quarter of them described the causes of the medical
conditions the drugs are designed to treat.

The study also found that emotional appeals were common and about 85
percent emphasized regaining control over some aspect of life.

"The ads do rely almost universally on the consumers' emotions," says
Dominick Frosch, lead study author and assistant professor of general
internal medicine at UCLA. "Medical decisions shouldn't be about
emotions. They should be on carefully weighed benefits, risks and
costs."

Frosch says presenting information about the drugs in this way could
also lead patients to think that they need medicine even if they
really don't. This could lead to changes in the way patients and
doctors communicate.

"It's really intruding onto the doctor-patient relationship," says Dr.
Kurt Stange, editor of Annals of Family Medicine and professor of
family medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "What
the ads tend to do is take up time and energy during a visit that
could otherwise be spent on things that are important to the patient."

And both Stange and Frosch say the drug ads may lead patients to
demand the advertised medications from their doctors.

"Doctors in surveys have said that they have provided drugs even when
the prescription wasn't appropriate," Frosch says. "If consumers were
powerless in changing the views of the doctors, the pharmaceutical
industry would not be spending money advertising to them. It works."

Can Advertisements Be Educational?

Before 1997, drug companies were faced with a conundrum when it came
to advertising their products through television commercials.

They could choose to mention either the product's name or what
condition it was supposed to treat, but they could not mention both.

The only alternative allowed by FDA guidelines at the time was to list
every side effect and possible contraindication of the drug 
practically an impossible feat for a 30-second commercial.

Fast-forward 10 years, and television advertising of prescription
drugs has become ubiquitous. Proponents argue that the ads serve a
valuable health function by educating patients.

However, Frosch says most ads fail to live up to this standard.

"What our study finds is that the education that these ads provide is
very minimal," he says.

Tighter Regulation May Be Needed

Despite his criticism of the current state of prescription drug
advertising, Stange says the ads are "not inherently bad." If
redesigned, Stange says, televised advertisements of prescription
drugs have the potential to provide patients with important
information. But he adds that in their current form, the ads are
unbalanced.

Frosch agrees.

"I am not sure that we necessarily have to ban prescription drug ads,
but it does need to be more regulated," he says. "The ads need to
include more information details&such as lifestyle choices that may be
better, or side effects or other contraindications. What we need to
recognize is that buying prescription drugs is not like buying a bar
of soap."
PeterB - 30 Jan 2007 19:39 GMT
I had to smile when reading the comment in the article that drug
commercials have "educational" value.  I can't imagine where they hid
it.  I was also not aware of the pre-1997 restriction preventing
mention of the drug name and its purpose in the same ad.  Here's what
I would like to see in future drug ads.  Let's say the drug in
question is called "Foolidor."  Audible disclaimer:

"FDA approval does not ensure the safety or effectiveness of Foolidor,
even as prescribed.  The mechanism of action for Foolidor is unknown.  
Both serious and life-threatening side effects have been associated
with the proper use of prescription drugs.  These risks should be
discussed with your doctor.  Foolidor is designed to modify your
("_______") profile, a known marker for ("_____") disease.  
Modification of such markers is not known to constitute effective
prevention or treatment of underlying illness.  Foolidor may not
reduce your risk of disease.  This drug was approved on the basis of a
toxicology profile developed over a period of three months in a group
of 20 patients.  It was later tested in fewer than 3,000 patients
prior to approval."

I mean, why shouldn't the drug makers have to tell the truth?

PeterB
Herman Rubin - 30 Jan 2007 21:08 GMT
>I had to smile when reading the comment in the article that drug
>commercials have "educational" value.  I can't imagine where they hid
>it.  I was also not aware of the pre-1997 restriction preventing
>mention of the drug name and its purpose in the same ad.  Here's what
>I would like to see in future drug ads.  Let's say the drug in
>question is called "Foolidor."  Audible disclaimer:

>"FDA approval does not ensure the safety or effectiveness of Foolidor,
>even as prescribed.  The mechanism of action for Foolidor is unknown.  
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>of 20 patients.  It was later tested in fewer than 3,000 patients
>prior to approval."

>I mean, why shouldn't the drug makers have to tell the truth?

>PeterB

Why not?  But few doctors tell you as much as the ads.
Few doctors discuss the risks, and many even do not
say what the chances of benefits are.

However, there was more preliminary testing of Foolidor
than you state.  And the number of patients tested to
give a reliable risk/benefit analysis cannot be too large
if the drug is to have a reasonable cost.

A doctor should be required to tell all this to a patient
BEFORE issuing the prescription, or at least before the
patient leaves the doctor's office, and can request some
alternative instead.

Signature

This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

PeterB - 31 Jan 2007 14:45 GMT
> In article <1170185993.499164.308...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> >of 20 patients.  It was later tested in fewer than 3,000 patients
> >prior to approval."

> >I mean, why shouldn't the drug makers have to tell the truth?
> >PeterB
>
> Why not?  But few doctors tell you as much as the ads.

Since the ads tell you virtually nothing, that's hard to imagine.  If
a patient asks his doctor about a particular drug, his doctor will
relate the drug to his patient's risk profile.  While over-
prescription is a well-documented problem, an even bigger problem is
use of marketing to suggest that treatment of disease *markers*
effectively treats, prevents, or reduces the risk of, any disease.  It
is difficult for doctors to openly question this without being
censured by the AMA, even when they want to.

> Few doctors discuss the risks, and many even do not
> say what the chances of benefits are.

They don't know.  A 3-mo. toxicology isn't sufficient to uncover most
serious side effects.  Sure, doctors can do a better job of discussing
the risks we do know about, but the real truth is that the most
serious side effects are not known until after drug has been heavily
marketed.  With regard to a discussion of the potential "benefits,"
that is only meaningful in the context of gene-level diagnostics,
something not currently available.  Since most drugs are designed to
address symptoms in an average patient, it's the *patient* who tells
the *doctor* that a drug is "working."  The real question is whether
symptom management is worth the potential trade off in disease
response down the road, maybe 20 or 30 years later (think breast
cancer rates and HRT.)  You seem to want to blame doctors, but the
regulatory process is at the heart of the problem here.  You may not
know that the drug makers have enormous control over policy-making at
FDA, meaning the industry is largely self regulated.  Thankfully,
doctors are starting to turn against this state of affairs.

> However, there was more preliminary testing of Foolidor
> than you state.  

What are you talking about?  Foolidor is not a real drug, I made up a
name to represent prescription meds in general.  The numbers I used
were taken from Eli Lilly's website -- they represent protocols
typical of drug development.

> And the number of patients tested to
> give a reliable risk/benefit analysis cannot be too large
> if the drug is to have a reasonable cost.

You think what a drug costs is more important than human life?  You
are Ok with a drug like Vioxx, which may have killed 60,000 Americans
who were never aware of the risks?

> A doctor should be required to tell all this to a patient
> BEFORE issuing the prescription...

You apparently don't read much away from the newsgroups.  Doctors
cannot be aware of problems the regulatory process hasn't uncovered in
the first place.  Were doctors aware of the elevated risk for breast
cancer resulting from use of HRT sooner than their patients?  Did you
see how much breast cancer rates have declined since the use of HRT
has been brought down?  Remember, the most serious side effects are
likely to be long term, as anything uncovered earlier can be
considered before drug approval in the first place.  The fact that
didn't happen with Vioxx, of course, is a whole other topic.

> , or at least before the
> patient leaves the doctor's office, and can request some
> alternative instead.

Patients should indeed take responsibility for their own health,
however the problem under discussion is not patient intitiative.  The
topic here is misleading (even criminal) advertising by the drug
industry.  Without meaningful regulation of the drug approval process
and an end to false advertising, the public remains at risk.  Since
FDA will not take action for fear of disrupting its funding source
(the drug makers) it is up to the public to demand change by engaging
their representatives in the Senate and Congress.

PeterB
PeterB - 30 Jan 2007 19:43 GMT
I had to smile when reading the comment in the article that drug
commercials have "educational" value.  I can't imagine where they hid
it.  I was also not aware of the pre-1997 restriction preventing
mention of the drug name and its purpose in the same ad.  Here's what
I would like to see in future drug ads.  Let's say the drug in
question is called "Foolidor."  Audible disclaimer:

"FDA approval does not ensure the safety or effectiveness of Foolidor,
even as prescribed.  The mechanism of action for Foolidor is unknown.  
Both serious and life-threatening side effects have been associated
with the proper use of prescription drugs.  These risks should be
discussed with your doctor.  Foolidor is designed to modify your
("_______") profile, a known marker for ("_____") disease.  
Modification of such markers is not known to constitute effective
prevention or treatment of underlying illness.  Foolidor has not been
proven to reduce your risk of disease.  This drug was approved on the
basis of a toxicology profile developed over a period of three months
in a group of 20 patients.  It was later tested in fewer than 3,000
patients prior to approval."

I mean, why shouldn't the drug makers have to tell the truth?

PeterB
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.