corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 10448

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: news

Woloshin S, Schwartz L.
Drug-ad smarts
Consumer Reports on Health 2007 May
http://www.consumerreports.org/oh/toc/may-2007/may-2007.htm


Full text:

How well do drug ads inform consumers?

The Food and Drug Administration requires that the ad says what the drug is for. Drug ads do that, but they give almost no information about how well the drug actually works. Instead we see images of people who are doing terribly and then seem completely better. When you see the ad for the sleeping pill eszopiclone (Lunesta), for example, you think it will give you eight hours of uninterrupted sleep every night. Clinical studies show that, on average, people who used Lunesta slept about 40 minutes longer than those who took a placebo. But 9 percent of people taking Lunesta also felt drowsy during the daytime, vs. just 3 percent with placebo. So Lunesta is by no means a cure for insomnia.

What’s the deal with that long list of side effects that the fasttalking announcer reads?

The regulation requires that the ads mention side effects but gives no guidance on how to present them. An example is ropinirole (Requip), the drug for restless legs. The benefit is pretty modest over placebo, yet 40 percent in the drug studies had nausea, compared with 8 percent on placebo. If a drug works really well, they might tolerate a long list of side effects, but not if it doesn’t.

Do the ads influence drug sales?

Drug companies spent over $5 billion on direct-to-consumer ads in 2006. That’s more than the FDA’s total budget. If ads didn’t increase revenue for the drug companies, they wouldn’t do it. The Requip ads even sparked demand for the lounge chair they showed. The drugs you see advertised are the newest and most expensive ones. People don’t realize that the FDA approves drugs based on pretty small studies. Requip was approved on the basis of three 12-week studies, which involved a total of about 900 people, and one 36- week study of about 100 people. Yet people may take it for years or a lifetime.

Copyright 2007 by Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. Yonkers, NY 10703-1057, a nonprofit organization. Reprinted with permission from the May 2007 issue of Consumer Reports On Health® for educational purposes only. No commercial use or reproduction permitted. www.ConsumerReportsonHealth.org.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909