Healthy Skepticism Library item: 1233
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: Journal Article
Cassels A, Hughes MA, Cole C, Mintzes B, Lexchin J, McCormack JP.
Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs.
CMAJ 2003 Apr 29; 168:(9):1133-7
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/9/1133
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Patients routinely cite the media, after physicians and pharmacists, as a key source of information on new drugs, but there has been little research on the quality of drug information presented. We assessed newspaper descriptions of drug benefits and harms, the nature of the effects described and the presence or absence of other important information that can add context and balance to a report about a new drug.
METHODS: We looked at newspaper coverage in the year 2000 of 5 prescription drugs launched in Canada between 1996 and 2001 that received a high degree of media attention: atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir and raloxifene. We searched 24 of Canada’s largest daily newspapers for articles reporting at least one benefit or harm of any of these 5 drugs. We recorded the benefits and harms reported and analyzed how such information was presented; we also determined whether clinical or surrogate outcomes were mentioned; if and how drug effects were quantified; whether contraindications, other treatment options and costs were mentioned; and whether any information on affiliations of quoted interviewees and potential conflicts of interest was presented.
RESULTS: Our search yielded 193 articles reporting at least one benefit or harm for 1 of the 5 drugs. All of the articles mentioned at least one benefit, but 68% (132/193) made no mention of possible side effects or harms. Only 24% (120/510) of mentions of drug benefits and harms presented quantitative information. In 26% (31/120) of cases in which drug benefits and harms were quantified, the magnitude was presented only in relative terms, which can be misleading. Overall, 62% (119/193) of the articles gave no quantification of the benefits or harms. Thirty-seven (19%) of the 193 articles reported only surrogate benefits. Other information needed for informed drug-related decisions was often lacking: only 7 (4%) of the articles mentioned contraindications, 61 (32%) mentioned drug costs, 89 (46%) mentioned drug alternatives, and 30 (16%) mentioned nondrug treatment options (such as exercise or diet). Sixty-two percent (120/193) of the articles quoted at least one interviewee. After exclusion of industry and government spokespeople, for only 3% (5/164) of interviewees was there any mention of potential financial conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent (15/57) of the articles discussing a study included information on study funding.
INTERPRETATION: Our results raise concerns about the completeness and quality of media reporting about new medications.
Keywords:
Acetamides/adverse effects
Advertising
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects
Anticholesteremic Agents/adverse effects
Antiviral Agents/adverse effects
Bibliometrics*
Canada
Cholinesterase Inhibitors/adverse effects
Consumer Product Safety
Disclosure
Drug Industry
Estrogen Antagonists/adverse effects
Heptanoic Acids/adverse effects
Humans
Indans/adverse effects
Newspapers*
Patient Education
Pharmaceutical Preparations/adverse effects*
Piperidines/adverse effects
Prescriptions, Drug*
Pyrroles/adverse effects
Raloxifene/adverse effects
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Sulfonamides/adverse effects
