Drug Advertisements - Essay Example

A Critical Study on Drug Advertisements Direct-to-consumer advertising of over-the-counter drugs and prescription drugs provides useful information for patients regarding diseases and their treatments. In a study conducted by Kaphingst and Dejong, it revealed that patients are more likely to ask their doctors about specific ailments and possible cures that they heard about from drug advertisement features. A majority of the physicians who joined the survey believed that the patient inquiries based on these advertisements have a positive impact on their interactions with patients even if they don’t easily recommend taking medication in response to their illness or health issues. More than half of the doctors interview also said that drug advertisements provide useful information for patients most of the time (148). Hence, it is very important that these advertisements are well scrutinized not only by the public reading it but by the physicians and FDA as well. The featured advertisement in this article is about the drug APRISO, referred as “a locally acting aminosalicylate indicated for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis in patients 18 years and older” (Apriso). It uses mesalamine as active ingredient and is suggested to be administered orally once a day. The contraindications, precautions, clinical studies and proper storage information are well presented throughout the advertisement and also its usage in specific populations. These information gives a better understanding on the nature of the product, its ability to deliver what it promises to do and its possible effects to individuals that use it. The APRISO advert presented two placebo-controlled clinical trials that resulted to a significant increase in the proportion of patients taking the drug who remained relapse-free at 6 months than those under placebo. The adult patients who joined the study were in remission from ulcerative colitis and were given the drug or placebo once daily in the morning in a period of 6 months. The trials were executed using randomized, double-blind and multi-centre studies using a modified Sutherland Disease Activity Index to assess the ulcerative colitis disease activity (Apriso). With the data collected, the efficiency of APRISO is proven, however it failed to show a comparison between the featured drugs with other similar medications available in the market, which could give a more comprehensive approach to the degree of APRISO’s effects. In addition, the clinical trials didn’t specifically mention the degree of the subject’s condition. The report however stated that the participants are adults with the mean age of 47 years and the sexes and race of the patients are correspondingly regarded. The reason for this might be the fact that ulcerative colitis and its degree of severity are not specific to age groups individuals. It is considered as an ailment brought by lifestyle choices and can occur in random situations (Apriso). On the other hand, the possible side effects of APRISO are carefully enumerated in the advertisement. It strongly advises patients with hypersensitivity to salicylates or amonisalicylates against taking the said drug and recommends them to undergo a renal function evaluation prior to administering the treatment. Warnings and precautions for patients in using APRISO are documented such as possible renal impairment, mesalamine-induced acute intolerance syndrome, hypersensitivity and hepatic treatment. The adverse reactions of subjects in the clinical trials that the company commissioned are similarly shown which includes headaches, diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, nasopharyngitis, influenza and sinusitis at low significant levels. Furthermore, the effects of the said treatment in specific groups such as in pregnant women, nursing mothers, children and older patients are also clearly expounded throughout the article (Apriso). One thing that the advertisement lacks is a cost comparison of their treatment with other drugs that are currently available in pharmacies. This is a significant factor that can help consumers in deciding whether to buy the drug or not. Conversely, the advertisers probably omitted this certain material and instead focused entirely on the benefits and contraindications of the treatment to gain a favorable response to the reading public. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, federal law doesn’t allow their agency to control advertisements for all drugs but they can regulate such from prescription drugs. They don’t have the authority to review nor approve drug advertisements and their power over its release and content is very limited. However, the design of adverts which prescription drugs are presented must meet the fair balanced requirements of the FDA. Because of this, the pharmaceutical companies have the tendency to offer biased information, vague and incomplete data on side effects and clinical trials in order to present a subjective approach to its consumers (Temple and Thompson 37). To help strengthen its policies, FDA revised its regulations regarding the advertisements that pharmaceutical companies produce to the public. More so, there is a clamor for regulatory agencies to further plan and develop strategies that can be beneficial to the general public and not only concentrate with the interests of the giant drug manufacturing firms. Print and broadcast advertisements relatively give incomplete risk information most especially when the promotion refers to consumers to doctors, pharmacists, and supplemental information sources. Transparency should be properly implemented in addressing the advertisements to maintain a holistic approach to the medication and its true benefits to its consumers (Temple and Thompson 49). Recent researches disclose that television advertisements impose several issues that might compromise their capability to meet the governing regulatory office’s requirement for fair balance in the manner which the risks and benefits of the drug are presented (Kaphingst and Dejong 143). It can be noted that the pharmaceutical industry has increased spending on marketing drugs directly over the years not only to the physicians who prescribe them but to patients as well. They concentrated in raising public awareness of drug products and campaigned for the involvement of the consumers in their health care (Frank, et al. 1-3). In a study conducted by Robinson, et al. in 2004, most physicians are inclined to view drug advertisements adversely since these promotional materials hardly provide enough information on cost, alternative treatment options or adverse effects. They also influence the patients to request for particular medications that lead to changes in their expectations of the doctor’s prescribing practices. Although drug advertisements are targeting a small population of consumers, the impact that it brings on physicians and their relationship with patients is significant (430-431). Moreover, direct-to-consumer drug advertisements usually features new drugs used for prolonged and recurrent diseases. The target market is a broad patient base and the treatments are promoted in a relatively rich but concise manner so that it could be easily understood by the people. Some groups of pharmacists, marketers and policy makers argue that drug advertising have a tendency to exaggerate pharmacological management alternatives. This in turn “encourages the public to seek medical advice for conditions that would otherwise go untreated and facilitates greater compliance with medical recommendations.” (Roth 63). Another point to ponder about the marketing of medicines is the ability of drug companies to influence the prescribing habits of doctors. Promotional spending directed to health practitioners has increased significantly in recent years and pharmaceutical companies have allotted a significant chunk of its funds for advertising and promotional materials including print and broadcast ads, pamphlets, posters and even advertisement on the internet that leads to increase in sales. They also offer subsidy in clinical studies on diseases and medical conditions that will utilize the drugs that they sell which put an added pressure to the doctors to prescribe and recommend the products commissioned by their sponsors to their patients (Temple and Thompson 53). This issue brings a moral and ethical dilemma to medical professionals, whether to allow themselves be manipulated by pharmaceutical bigwigs or stick to their pledge of professional oath of serving their patients truthfully and to never take advantage of their weakness. The moral code of doctors reiterates that “a physician has an ethical role to apply the best current scientific knowledge to the individual circumstances of the patient and to practice his healing skills for what is best for the patient.” (Matthews). Still the trends of sponsorship deal between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry is quite alarming which ranges from a simple token of free dinners to a continuing medical education credit and luxurious accommodations. There are even accounted scientific articles written by ghost authors that feature particular drugs as a form of promotion and exposure that are known to be published in popular medical journals (Matthews). In conclusion, the fate of drug advertising is in the hands of the government regulatory bodies, medical practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, advertisers, consumers and everyone involved in the impact of health care products to the public. FDA and other government monitoring agencies are supposed to implement necessary policies that will regulate the use of and advertising campaigns of products to the market. Presently, FDA has a weak policy concerning how advertisements are being presented thus it is vital to lobby the creation of new laws or amending the old ones that can help solve this matter. Medical organizations are gradually acting regarding the ethical effects of drug advertising and are pooling its members by holding meetings and conferences that focuses on rebuilding their credibility and avoiding conflict of interests. It is not an easy task to restore the faith of patients to their doctors but they are leaning towards a promising outcome in the future. Also, the pharmaceutical industry and advertisers are challenged to be truthful, if not transparent, to the effects of the drug that they advertise and promote its benefits and efficiency instead of the glamour that advertising entails. Health and remedy against diseases are still the primary goal of developing new drugs therefore it is their obligation to deliver their assurances to consumers (Klein and Glick). Lastly, the success or failure of drug advertisement campaigns depends completely to the buying public. Therefore it is advised that consumers become aware and involved by studying and researching about a product before buying it or consulting a doctor regarding health issues. It is best to consider the details of an advertisement, its benefits, contraindications and side effects in every product that you purchase. Works Cited [PDF] Frank, Richard G., Earnst R. Berndt, Julie M. Donohue, Arnold M. Epstein, and Meredith B. Rosenthal, M. Trends in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs. 2002. Print. Kaphingst, Kimberly A. and William Dejong. “The Educational Potential of Direct-To- Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising”. Health Affairs. 2004; Vol. 23(4):143-150. Print. Klein, Donald F. and Ira D. Glick. “Conflict of Interest, Journal Review, and Publication Policy”. Neuropsychopharmacology. Vol. 33 (2008):3023-3026. 23 Jul 2008. Web. 28 Jul 2012. Matthews, Robert. Hooked: Ethics, the medical Profession, and the Pharmaceutical Industry. 7 Nov 2008. Web. 27 Jul 2012. Robinson, AR., Hohmann, KB., Rifkin, JR., Topp, D., Gilroy, CM., Pickard, JA. and Anderson, RJ. “Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising: Physician and Public Opinion and Potential Effects on the Physician-Patient Relationship”. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164(4):427-431. Print. Roth, M.S. “Patterns in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Advertising and Their Public Policy Implications”. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 1996; Vol. 15(1):63-75. Print. Temple, N. J. , & Thompson, A. (Eds.). Excessive Medical Spending: Facing the Challenge. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe Publishing. 2007. Print. Read More