Drug Ads: How can they be made better?
by James Hubbard, M.D., M.P.H.
I recently wrote about why drug ads are the way they are. Lo and behold, a study comes out that suggests perhaps a change is in order.
The FDA recognizes we need better quality drug direct-to-consumer ads. Several groups, including the Institute of Medicine, have called for better information conveying benefits versus adverse effects in these ads.
From a sponsor’s standpoint, ads are for one reason: to sell products. Regulators are there to make sure these ads aren’t misleading, but don’t want to place undue restrictions that cause ads (and their money) to disappear. So where is the middle ground?
Of course, no matter what happens, there will be critics. Too much information, not enough, wrong type and so on. With this in mind comes a new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
ABOUT THE STUDY
This study took real print ads, changed the drug names and manufacturers and added boxes of standardized information. Then they randomly sent the ads with the box to 200 or so people and the ad without the box to the same amount. They wanted to see if the boxed information would help participants make a more informed choice.
To see the ads, download Appendixes 1 and 2 here. The authors made sure there’s a right answer (i.e. from the data given, one of the two drugs is better).
What do you think? Did the boxes help? Do you think they’ll help others?
The authors found they did help those surveyed choose correctly. But the choices had cut-and-dry correct answers. It’s usually not that way in real life. A drug may be 10 percent more effective than another but have more side effects. One could work 30 minutes faster or help with heartburn symptoms more, but the other heals ulcers better.
PROS AND CONS
I have reservations about giving so much power to someone to decide which statistics from which studies to use in these boxes. There are usually multiple studies looking at various outcomes with different conclusions.
I don’t see many drug reps anymore, but they used to come in with new studies all the time touting their drug. Of course, they chose positive studies to present and pointed out statistics that were to their benefit. I don’t blame them, but I always tried to do a little independent research to discern whether the study was of good quality and how it compared to others.
Then again, I need a little help interpreting sometimes, also, and boxes may be a good step that can be refined later. A good thing is consumers will find that nothing works 100 percent of the time. And then there are those pesky side effects to consider.
What do you think? Do you think the boxes will help, or do you have better ideas?
By the way, Maxtor works better on the heartburn. In number two, Concor works better.
Doctors and business owners: Send customized issues of James Hubbard’s My Family Doctor to your customers or patients. E-mail publisher-at-familydoctormag.com for details.
Tags: FDA, medicine safety
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I am glad to see people talking about direct to consumer ads by big pharma. I think the recent study by Dartmouth researchers on a “Drug Facts” labe similar to the food nutrition facts label is a good idea. I would invite you to read my discussion on this and other FDA issues from the perspective of an ex-FDA field investigator. My blog is at: http://carl1anderson.wordpress.com/ and I would welcome your comments.
Carl Andersons last blog post..FDA & The Declaration of Helsinki
March 20th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I would like to put on here that there has been a new program open up In Morristown TN. This is a NA and AA meeting held at New Hope Recovery Center on Friday nights in the kitchen area, from 7pm to 8pm for gay and lesbians only. If you have children you are welcome to bring them, as long as they are well behaved, and excepts the issues. They are also a waiting room where the children may wait as well. This is a meeting that is totally private and non smoking. So if you would like to join us on Friday nights we would love to have you.