A.M.A. to Study Effect of Marketing Drugs to Consumers

[Iris]

Hey, it's at least a step in the right direction!



A.M.A. to Study Effect of Marketing Drugs to Consumers

Some say ads fueled the use of Vioxx, which has been linked to heart problems.

By STEPHANIE SAUL
Published: June 22, 2005
ADD another voice to the list of groups questioning how drugs are pitched to consumers.

The American Medical Association, the nation's largest organization of physicians, agreed yesterday to study whether consumer drug advertising leads to unnecessary prescriptions, potentially harming patients and driving up health costs.

The A.M.A.'s decision, during a meeting in Chicago, came after a debate over consumer drug advertising. The association's House of Delegates had considered half a dozen proposals to limit drug advertising.

Many critics say advertising fueled the widespread use of cox-2 painkillers, recently linked to serious cardiovascular problems. Vioxx, the cox-2 drug that Merck withdrew from the market in September, was widely advertised to consumers. Studies later indicated that, for many patients, it was no more effective than other, safer pain killers.

Several psychiatrists' groups with representatives at the A.M.A. meeting raised the idea of a ban on advertising of new drugs for at least a few months after they go on sale.

Imposing a window of time between a new drug's release and its first advertising to consumers would allow doctors to evaluate medications before patients asked for them. If a drug caused serious side effects, doctors might spot them before the drugs were widely used.

"I'm optimistic that we have placed the issue squarely on the A.M.A.'s agenda," said Dr. David Fassler, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.

The A.M.A., with nearly a quarter-million members, is the latest group increasing pressure on the pharmaceutical industry.

The Food and Drug Administration has recently raised its surveillance of drug advertising, sending out 13 warning letters this year on advertising-related issues. The United States House of Representatives voted this month to double the F.D.A.'s budget for monitoring the advertising of pharmaceuticals to consumers.

Some support for constraints on advertising is coming even from within the industry. Last week, Bristol-Myers Squibb became the first large pharmaceutical company to announce and publish self-imposed guidelines, which include a promise that the company will not advertise new drugs to consumers in the first year they are available.

A spokesman for Bristol-Myers, Brian Henry, said the company wanted to make sure that physicians developed a comfort level with the drug before patients began asking for it.

Limiting drug ads is easier for Bristol-Myers than it is for some other pharmaceutical companies because much of the company's business is in specialty products for diseases like AIDS and cancer. Those are normally marketed to physicians rather than consumers, anyway.

So-called recreational drugs, like Viagra, or products that appeal to a large market are more likely to be advertised directly to consumers.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, is drafting guidelines for the industry. The guidelines are expected to be released next month. But the trade group is not expected to embrace a ban on the advertising of new drugs.

Both the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the advertising industry argue that the marketing of drugs helps alert consumers to treatments.

"Somewhere between 24 and 30 million people have gone to their doctor to talk about a health problem they had never discussed before after seeing a prescription drug ad," said Daniel L. Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. The organization says that an advertising ban on new drugs would raise First Amendment issues.

In 1997, the F.D.A. eased constraints on advertising pharmaceuticals to consumers. Since then, it has become one of the advertising industry's fastest-growing segments. Last year, it reached $3.8 billion.

"We've seen a dramatic increase in direct-to-consumer advertising in recent years," said Dr. Fassler, a delegate who represented the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the meeting. "Data indicates that a majority of physicians believe that such advertising can cause patients to think that medications can work better than they do."

Psychiatrists have a special interest in drug advertising after reports that some antidepressants were overprescribed and that some had been linked to suicidal thoughts and actions in some children and teenagers.

Last year, the F.D.A. banned some types of ads for antidepressants - those that include the drug's name but not its intended use. In other ads for antidepressants, the agency said, the warnings of potentially serious side effects must be prominently displayed or clearly spoken.

Also, within the last year, the F.D.A. warned Eli Lilly & Company that an advertisement on television for the company's drug to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder minimized the risks of the drug. The ad, for Lilly's heavily marketed drug called Strattera, featured graphics like those in a video game. The F.D.A. complained that the ad's music and images seemed to mask messages about the drug's risk. The company had already stopped using the ad, however, by the time it received the warning letter.

Other companies have toned down their advertising after F.D.A. warnings.

In March, the agency told AstraZeneca that its ads for its cholesterol drug, Crestor, were misleading. The ads had claimed the drug was superior to rivals at lowering cholesterol.

A new Crestor campaign makes no claim of superiority but features a serious discussion of high cholesterol and its dangers, delivered by the actor Mandy Patinkin. Middle-aged viewers who could not identify Mr. Patinkin by name may remember him for one of his roles. He played Dr. Jeffrey Geiger on the 1990's television drama "Chicago Hope."

[Devastated]

Well, I think we can safely say the commercials are sickening.

[Iris]

The commercials always make me laugh. They come on with all this happy music and happy people. Then about 3/4 of the way through some guy comes on with a deep, soft voice and says: "May cause diarrhea, bloating, cramps, headaches, loss of sex drive, vomiting, rashes, seizures, and death." Then the music gets all happy again and so do the people. Along about then I'm thinkin' about how much I wanna stay away from that stuff!

[Devastated]

I'm always interested in the side effects: The guy who can talk real fast says, "side effects may include potential vaginal clenching, skin loss, seizures, reddening, sore throat, nausea, runny nose and a little bit of odor."

[Pennylane005]

My faves: may cause stomach ulcers or tuberculosis.

The ads are good for drug companies’ stock market ratings and for corporate fascism in general with little concern for the overall benefits for us.

You get pushers, dealers, dirty money, dangerous consequences and broken promises whether the drugs are legal or illegal. It’s all the same to me.

[feetsie]

The commercials that amaze me are the ones that want you to ask your doctor if their drug is right for you, but the commercial never says what the drug is supposed to do.

Maybe I should just make a list of all the advertised pharmaceuticals and ask my doctor which ones are right for me.

Unless somebody has some better drugs. . .