Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2195

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

Norton A.
Magazine Drug Ads Deemed Too Vague
Reuters Health 2001 Oct 5

Full text:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Magazine ads for prescription drugs are high on emotional appeal, but short on evidence that they work, researchers report.

Urging consumers to help their children fight allergies or to question whether their memory lapses might be Alzheimer’s, most drug ads favor ``vague’‘ claims over clinical data, according to a report in the October 6th issue of The Lancet.

Looking at ads in 70 issues of 10 leading US consumer magazines, researchers found that 87% chose ``vague, qualitative terms’‘ to describe the medication’s benefits rather than providing research evidence.

``Our findings indicate that these advertisements rarely quantify a medication’s expected benefit, and instead make an emotional appeal,’‘ write Dr. Steven Woloshin and his colleagues at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont.

``This strategy,’‘ they add, ``probably leaves many readers with the perception that the drug’s benefit is large and that everyone who uses the drug will enjoy the benefit.’‘

The authors also argue that a key danger is that many of these ads may ``medicalize’‘ run-of-the-mill problems in the public’s mind.

``A runny nose all of a sudden becomes allergic rhinitis,’‘ Woloshin said in an interview.

But experts disagree on whether direct-to-consumer, or DTC, drug ads are causing consumers to demand drugs they do not need. At a recent Senate hearing, an official with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—the agency that regulates such ads—said there is no evidence that DTC advertising has led to inappropriate prescriptions.

In its position statement on the issue, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group, argues that DTC ads help educate the public about diseases and treatments they might otherwise be unaware of.

``Since prescription drugs are available only under a doctor’s supervision,’‘ the group states, ``there is little danger that advertising will lead to inappropriate use.’‘

But Woloshin questioned drug companies’ stated purpose of educating the public, since his team found few hard facts in the ads they studied. Instead, according to the researcher, bold-print lines like ``Is it just forgetfulness…or Alzheimer’s disease?’‘ are likely to raise readers’ anxiety about disease rather than their awareness.

Pushing people to see their doctors, Woloshin noted, ``is sometimes good, but sometimes bad’‘—bad, he said, when the office visits and subsequent tests are needless.

The FDA does require drug makers to mention a medication’s side effects in advertisements. And Woloshin’s team found that nearly all ads complied with the regulation and specified the drug’s side effects.

But when it came to detailing a drug’s benefits, details were hard to find, according to the researchers. About one-quarter made vague references like ``proven relief,’‘ while some relied on personal testimonials. Only a handful provided clinical data to support their claims.

Woloshin suggested that one way to overcome this problem would be for the FDA to require advertisements to carry data on benefits and side effects in an easy-to-read format similar to the nutrition information boxes on food products.

Drug companies have been engaged in print advertising since the early 1980s in the US. But DTC advertising has taken off in recent years, with companies estimated to have spent nearly $2 billion for ads in 1999.