Drug Advertising Not Based on Facts
CategoriesAn investigation of the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine, a private independent research institute in Cologne, has come to the conclusion that advertising of drugs is sorely lacking in scientific backup.
With drug companies spending billions for promotion of their products, one wonders why they can't even get the science right. Unless of course ... the science is hard to get by because their remedies don't work too well. For sure the drug companies have to lean heavily on scientists to 'achieve positive results' and sometimes they do get caught.
Could drug based medicine really be but a business with disease, as detractors claim? No doubt it is a business, but Forbes says it is one to stay away from if you're thinking of investing your life's savings...
ONLY 6% OF DRUG ADVERTISING MATERIAL IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
By Heidelberg Annette Tuffs
British Medical Journal
February 28, 2004A new study of the advertising material and marketing brochures sent out by drug companies to GPs in Germany has shown that about 94% of the information in them has no basis in scientific evidence.
The study, carried out by the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine, a private independent research institute in Cologne, evaluated 175 brochures containing information on 520 drugs, which were either sent by post or handed out to 43 GPs since last June. The study was published in this month's issue of the drugs bulletin Arznei Telegramm (2004;35:21-3;
About 15% of the brochures did not contain any citations, while the citations listed in another 22% could not be found. In the remaining 63% the information was mostly correctly connected with the relevant research articles but did not reflect their results. Only 6% of the brochures contained statements that were scientifically supported by identifiable literature.The evaluation was done by two specially trained and independently acting reviewers. In cases of doubt a third reviewer was involved.
"This is the first study in Germany evaluating the quality of drug advertising material," says Thomas Kaiser, a scientist at the institute who published the study together with Peter Sawicki and other colleagues.
He points out that the advertising material presents distorted images of the drugs' profiles. The article lists several examples of misrepresentation:
medical guidelines from scientific societies are misquoted or changed, the side effects of drugs are minimised, groups of patient are wrongly defined, study results are suppressed, treatment effects are exaggerated, risks are manipulated, and effects of drugs were drawn from animal studies.The authors warn that such a high amount of misinformation puts patients' health at risk. Studies from other countries have shown that doctors tend to base their decisions on the information and advertising material sent out by drug companies. Therefore, the authors conclude, an independent institution should be established to monitor the content of such material.
The German drug industry has decided to tighten the rules in its self regulatory code on relations between the industry and the medical profession with regard to cooperation in clinical studies and attendance at conferences that are funded by drug companies.
The German Association of Research Based Pharmaceutical Companies in Berlin announced that its members have set up an independent tribunal in Berlin. Members of the tribunal will be chosen by drug companies and doctors' and patients' groups but will not be elected representatives of those bodies.
Like a court, the tribunal will be able to punish companies that break the rules, imposing fines of up to 50,000 Euro (£34,000; $63,000) or, in the case of a second offence, up to 250,000 Euro. Anyone will be allowed to notify the tribunal of possible offences.
The initiative was the industry's reaction to the German government's threat to install an executive against corruption. Doctors' associations have also tightened their rules on corruption.
More information about the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine can be found on its website: http://www.di-em.de/
Comments a friend from New Zealand: "This would seem to park 'real' medicine alongside placebo..." and incredibly, there seems to be no existing standard for formulating a placebo. It seems ingredients are adjusted in accordance with the anticipated test results.
See also related:
Big Bucks, Big Pharma pulls back the curtain on the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry to expose the insidious ways that illness is used, manipulated, and often created, for profit. Focusing on the industry's marketing practices, the video shows how direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising glamorizes prescription drugs, and works to reinforce drug promotion to doctors. Pharmaceutical Research is seen as essentially uncontrolled and heavily skewed. Ultimately, Big Bucks, Big Pharma challenges us to ask important questions about the consequences of relying on a for-profit industry for our health and well-being.
British Medical Journal article:
Only 6% of drug advertising material is supported by evidenceConflicts of Interest in Research
Direct to consumer ads can be misleading, say researchers
Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals
Drug Companies spend $ millions lobbying
Pharmaceuticals no longer good investment, says Forbes
Doctor jailed for making up research for a drug experiment
Pharmaceutical Science Based Myth: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals
Ads for drugs under fire
By RACHEL ROSS
Bringing a drug to market is an expensive endeavour. Building a market for a drug can be pricey too. Pharmaceutical companies contend drug prices must be high to fund research and development. Yet these same companies typically spend twice as much on marketing and administration as they do on drug discovery.THE WASHINGTON POST - Doctors Influenced By Mention Of Drug Ads
Actors pretending to be patients with symptoms of stress and fatigue were five times as likely to walk out of doctors' offices with a prescription when they mentioned seeing an ad for the heavily promoted antidepressant Paxil, according an unusual study being published today. The study employed an elaborate ruse -- sending actors with fake symptoms into 152 doctors' offices to see whether they would get prescriptions. Most who did not report symptoms of depression were not given medications, but when they asked for Paxil, 55 percent were given prescriptions, and 50 percent received diagnoses of depression. The study adds fuel to the growing controversy over the estimated $4 billion a year the drug industry spends on such advertising. Many public health advocates have long complained about ads showing happy people whose lives were changed by a drug, and now voices in Congress, the Food and Drug Administration and even the pharmaceutical industry are asking whether things have gone too far.Medical professors speak out against advertising directly to consumers
BMJ - Jeanne Lenzer
The drug industry’s "onslaught of advertising to promote prescription drugs . . . does not promote public health" and "increases costs and unnecessary prescriptions," more than 200 US medical school professors said last week. In the United States the industry spends $4bn (£2.3bn; €3.3bn) a year on direct to consumer advertising.Armed with New Vaccines, Drug Makers Target Teenagers
The fact is, treatments that are proven safe and effective do not need aggressive marketing--word quickly spreads about their demonstrable efficacy convincing doctors to prescribe such medicines--manufacturers don't invest money to market antibiotics--they are a proven commodity. Drug and vaccine manufacturers invest big bucks mostly (if not entirely) to advertise ineffective (or marginally effective, often unsafe) drugs and vaccines. They advertise most aggressively for the first two years before the lack of efficacy and adverse effects become obvious.
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Wednesday March 31 2004
updated on Sunday May 27 2007
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||