Study questions effectiveness of Big Pharma ads
Remember how outraged I’ve been that the FDA allows Big Pharma to run direct-to- consumer (DTC) ads for prescription drugs on television? Ever since the FDA eased the restrictions on broadcast drug advertising back in 1997, I’ve been huffing and puffing about the negative impact of this practice because – among other things – I believe they encourage people to self-diagnose.
But now, I may actually be coming around on the issue of DTC drug advertising. Heck, I might even encourage more of it. And before you get all crazy and think I’m being hypocritical or that I’ve sold out, there’s a reason for my change of heart: a new study has shown that by and large, DTC drug ads are costing Big Pharma billions – and it’s hardly boosting drug sales at all.
Over the course of five years, the study examined the effect of DTC drug advertising in a place where such ads are forbidden: Canada (in fact, New Zealand and the U.S. are the only two countries in the world that permit DTC drug advertising).
Researchers took advantage of the unique demographics of the Canada-U.S. border region. Canadian viewers living close to the U.S. are regularly exposed to U.S. TV broadcasts that bleed across the border. The study examined the affect of U.S. drug ads on drug sales in Canada’s English-speaking regions, while using French-speaking Quebec as a control group. The researchers wondered if sales would increase more in the region of Canada exposed to U.S. TV drug ads.
The study focused on sales of three drugs: Enbrel, Nasonex, and Zelnorm. At the end of the five years, researchers found that prescription rates for Nasonex and Enbrel were steady in both regions of Canada. When the TV campaign for Zelnorm (an irritable bowel syndrome drug) was launched, there was an initial jump in prescriptions in the English- speaking region, but it was short lived. Soon, sales of Zelnorm were nearly identical in both Quebec and English-speaking Canada.
I’m not sure if this is the result of consumers being smarter than Big Pharma thinks, or if Big Pharma is as dumb as I’ve long suspected them of being. After all, they seemed to be jumping on the TV advertising bandwagon believing that consumers would, like sheep, see a TV ad for a drug to prevent “restless leg syndrome” (whatever that is) and run out to lobby their doctors for a prescription. The problem is, prescription medications just aren’t as sexy or interesting as a new car, a lite beer, or the latest video game.
Harvard Medical School professor and study co-author Stephen Soumerai thinks Big Pharma companies based their decision to market prescription drugs directly to consumers on sketchy data. “Advertising prescription drugs is not like popcorn, cereal, and hair spray,” he said.
“A person needs to see an ad, get motivated by the ad, contact their doctor for an appointment, show up at the appointment, communicate both the condition and the drug to the doctor, convince the doctor that this drug is preferable to other alternatives, then actually go out and fill the prescription. This is a chain of events that can break at any point,” Soumerai said. And he’s right: that’s hardly as easy as popping into the nearest Walmart for a six-pack of Coke.
I was being facetious about my newfound “pro” DTC stance, of course. While I’m happy to see Big Pharma uselessly burning their mountains of cash rather than using it to exert undue influence on congressmen and senators, I still find DTC drug advertising to be an insidious practice. It’s all well and good for this study to “reveal” that DTC ads are ineffective. But remember that Merck pumped $160 million into ad campaigns for their deadly painkiller Vioxx, and that resulted in $2.5 billion in annual sales. If the FDA had reined in DTC advertising, how many Vioxx victims would be alive today?
Personal freedoms continue to die throughout our country. Smoking has already been banned in most restaurants and bars, but now there’s a new public ordinance in Maine that will take the smoking ban outside.
The ban, which goes into effect in October, prohibits smoking on the OUTSIDE patios and decks at restaurants and bars before 10 p.m. I know what you’re thinking: Oh, come on Dr. D, lighten up!
Uh-huh. Right. And exactly how many times have you ever seen one of these bans retracted rather than expanded? How about never? Once they’re taken away, personal freedoms are rarely restored.
The City of Portland originally banned smoking inside bars back in 2004; it only took the freedom-hating do-gooders four years to go after the right of people to smoke outside. And trust me, it will get worse. This don’t-smoke-outside-before-10 p.m law is Portland’s second smoking restriction law to be passed in a month.
Last month, the city outlawed smoking within 20 feet of playgrounds, public beaches, and athletic facilities. How long before 20 feet becomes “everywhere in Portland?” Talk to me in 2012
