Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4207

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

Mansfield PR.
Classifying improvements to drug marketing and justifications for claims of efficacy
International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 1991; 2:171-184

Abstract:

Five ways to compare drug companies’ replies to enquiries about drugs are reviewed. Classification of improvements to marketing and justification for claims of efficacy are the most useful measures. Between July 1988 and June 1990, eight transnational drug companies were asked to supply their best evidence to support their claims for nine products. There was no reply from two companies: Abbott and Takeda. Improvements in the marketing of five products were promised ranging from withdrawal of claims to withdrawal of the drug. Justification for claims of efficacy ranged from endorsement by the company’s own staff to use of a clinical trial with severe methodological flaws. Possible reasons for pharmaceutical executives deciding not to answer questions about their products are discussed.

Keywords:
*analytic survey/Abbott/Takeda/Servier/Rhône Poulenc/ Hoechst/ Wyeth/Nicholas-Sara Lee/Sterling/quality of information/Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing/MaLAM/quality of information/ATTITUDES REGARDING PROMOTION: INDUSTRY/EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: CRITICAL APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES/EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: GENERAL QUALITY OF INFORMATION