30 Apr 2004

Drug ads provide a mixed blessing.

Prescription drug advertisements have become a staple in print and broadcast, deftly touting panaceas for depression, high cholesterol, sleeplessness and other maladies to a fascinated but often confused public.

Doctors who must treat this public have mixed feelings as well.

A survey of 1,300 physicians by Massachusetts General Hospital has found that 80 percent of them say these creative sales pitches for serious drugs do not present "balanced health information" to consumers and could lead "patients to seek unnecessary treatment."

The direct-to-consumer ad (DTCA) offers a seductive pitch in clever or attractive packages, pushing drug brand names with as much vigor as a pitch for soap or cereal.

 Although 70 percent of the doctors surveyed thought the ads could help educate patients or stimulate discussion during a consultation, just 40 percent said they had a positive effect on either patient or doctor.

 "From a public health perspective, the DTCA is a blunt tool -- providing much-needed patient education and encouragement to see doctors about important health conditions, but possibly leading patients to seek treatment they do not need," study director Joel Weissman said.

The public may end up a captive audience, however.

In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration lifted its moratorium on televised drug ads, allowing drug companies to broadcast their wares as long as they included the risk factors giving rise to the unintentionally comedic, rapid-fire announcements of undesirable side effects that follow many spots.

 But it is serious business: Drug companies spent $2.6 billion on advertising last year, up from $51 million back in 1991.

Industry analysts still are trying to figure out when these ads are helpful or misleading pitches.

 After analyzing 564 FDA reports of false drug promotions last year, Consumer Reports found 230 instances of incorrect drug labeling and 363 instances where the drug company had obscured or omitted the product risks.

Two-thirds of the respondents in a 2001 patient survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation said drug ads taught them "nothing" about their illness while almost half of the participants in a University of California Los Angeles study said they would be "disappointed" if their doctor would not prescribe a drug by its advertised brand name.

Earlier this year, the FDA moved to reform the required but often unintelligible fine print that accompanies drug advertising, suggesting manufacturers run the information in larger print and consumer-friendly language -- as a "useful health tool," an FDA spokesman said.

Meanwhile, doctors have been portrayed as drug company stooges in the press, prescribing popular brand names to appease patients. But many seem to be holding an ethical line, at least according to the Massachusetts General Hospital survey, released Wednesday.

It found that 5 percent of the doctors said they would bow to a patient's demands and prescribe a brand-name drug, knowing another medication was more effective.

By Jennifer Harper

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 30, 2004

close window