|
|
    
|
|
|
(April 7, 2007)
I grew up in an era when physicians did not advertise so it took time before I became more understanding and accepting of doctors who advertise their practices. I am not, however, understanding and accepting of the current practice of advertising drugs on television. I wish there was a way our society could prohibit this type of advertisement. Unfortunately, because of freedom of speech issues and the drug company lobby, all I can hope for is some much needed legal restrictions on the process. Drug advertisements aimed at consumers is big business. Last year the pharmaceutical industry spent $4.5 billion dollars on what is called Direct to Consumer or DTC advertisements. In 1997 it was only $1.1 billion. Obviously DTC works and the pharmaceutical industry is reaping huge rewards for their efforts. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Journal of Medicine reported that patient requests for specific medication does potentially avert under use of medication for certain disorders but also promotes over use. Our country takes more prescription medication per capita then any other country and patients have considerable influence on what a doctor will prescribe. It is this fact that drives the drug industry to increase the growth of drug advertisements. Another study released this past January noted that drug ads on TV frequently display actors loosing control over some bodily function that would be remedied by taking the advertised medication, while at the same time, minimizing the health benefits of treatment by making lifestyle modifications. It is no wonder Americans believe that taking drugs is the best way to treat a problem. It appears that I am not alone in my distain of drug advertisements on TV. A survey commissioned by Price Waterhouse-Cooper Accounting and Consulting Firm found that there is considerable skepticism among the public on the issue of drug advertisements. Only one in ten consumers stated that DTC ads provided useful information. I suppose they were responding in part, to all the erectile dysfunction ads on TV, especially the one with a couple in separate uncomfortable bath tubs placed outdoors while holding hands. How strange it that? Billy Tauzin, President and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America recently stated, "While individual patients find the information useful in discussions with their physicians, patients and consumers generally express unhappiness with DTC advertising". Despite all this negativism toward DTC however, America along with New Zealand are the only two countries in the world which permit DTC. What is equally disturbing is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent 37 warning letters in the past two years, to drug companies to immediately cease misleading superiority claims made in their advertisements. One such misleading claim was made by AstraZeneca concerning its ad for Crestor. The ad claimed that Crestor was "clearly the best in a head to head" test with the three largest selling cholesterol drugs. In another case, Amben, the company which manufactures Enbrel, (a drug used to treat a skin disease), was reprimanded because its advertisement minimized serious risks. All this worries me. Fortunately, last year the prestigious Institute of Medicine called on Congress to give the FDA new authority over DTC including power to mandate a two year moratorium on advertising a new drug. This recommendation was made due to patient safety issues. It seems that safety of a newly FDA approved drug cannot be truly known until it has been extensively used by very large populations over several years. That was evident when, after extensive advertisements for the newly approved Vioxx and subsequent wide usage, it was noted that the drug was linked to an increase in heart attacks and strokes. Clearly, we need restrictions and guidelines on DTC, as well as improved oversight. How we get there is another story. Until that time, at least there is TIVO. |
