The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Drug Advertisements
Delzhand
Registered User, Transition Team regular
Registered User, Transition Team regular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN4RqO-gUIA
Okay, I'm not sure if this is funny or sad. I just saw an advertisement for a pill to stop smoking called "Chantix" - about halfway into the ad, they say that if you experience agitation, depression or "suicidal thoughts or actions" to stop taking it. Then they go on to say that people have experienced these side effects, even after stopping taking it.
Then they said something that made me think that the ad was a parody:
"Some users have reported vivid and unusual or strange dreams".
What the hell? Is the FDA asleep at the wheel? How can it be legal to market things like this to people?
Okay, I'm not sure if this is funny or sad. I just saw an advertisement for a pill to stop smoking called "Chantix" - about halfway into the ad, they say that if you experience agitation, depression or "suicidal thoughts or actions" to stop taking it. Then they go on to say that people have experienced these side effects, even after stopping taking it.
Then they said something that made me think that the ad was a parody:
"Some users have reported vivid and unusual or strange dreams".
What the hell? Is the FDA asleep at the wheel? How can it be legal to market things like this to people?
Delzhand on
0
Posts
Are you asking how can it be legal to prescribe those drugs to people, or how can it be legal to have TV advertisements marketing drugs to laypeople?
Those are two different questions and I'll have two different answers for you. Or possibly four or five answers, for each, since drug approval and marketing is just a tiny bit complicated.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I guess, I don't understand what the problem is? Or what your question is, really.
It's a failure of the FDA that they were able to get by calling them "vivid or unusual dreams."
It's difficult to believe that people, who have to go to doctors to get a script, would listen to a commercial over what a doc says.
"Hey doc, I need Actulove."
"No, that wouldn't help you. I'd recommend Xanadine."
"Ok, doc, whatever's best."
Ad wasted.
Edit: Apparently not.
You can sometimes find figures that are broken down between direct-to-consumer marketing (like TV ads), and direct-to-physician marketing (like drug reps.) Weirdly, there's usually another class of reps, reimbursement reps, who go to insurance companies and try to convince them to pay more for a new drug, but those are sometimes included in marketing budgets, but sometimes not (they're occasionally broken out into a separate budget area for 'reimbursement.')
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
From the Pharma perspective, it's more like a two-pronged approach they're hoping for.
"Hey doc, I need actulove."
[Doctor remembers that he gets free samples of Actulove, gets awesome trips to exotic locales for "presentations" on Actulove, and the cute Actulove sales rep brings donuts each time she visits the office]
"You know what? I'm inclined to agree!"
"Gee thanks doc!"
More like
"Hey doc, I need Actulove."
"Well I don't really think thats necessary but.."
"I want the drug!"
"Well, I guess..."
The doctor will then write the prescription with his Actulove pen before relaxing on the Actulove chair that was donated to him and day dream about the booze cruise Actulove's marketing reps took him on the week before
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Here's the way it's more likely to go:
"Hey doc, I need Actulove."
"Oh, that's a good drug."
(Scrubs-style flashback to the day before, when an Actulove marketing rep is in the office. She's going on and on about the benefits of Actulove while the doctor and all the staff are only half-listening while stuffing their faces full of free pizza that the drug rep brought in.)
"Yep, that's a good drug. Here's a scrip."
Edit: What MikeMan said.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Really? In my experience, doctors are one of those professions that many people just don't trust (which I find odd). Of course, I suppose that would translate into someone simply not visiting their doc, rather than ignoring their advice.
Shit, looks like I missed the boat on that one.
Edited to add some actual content:
I'm not sure doctors can be generalized either way. I know I prefer to think that doctors have my best interests in mind and I trust the old hippie dude I go to, I'm not sure I'm willing to say that they all really read up on new products and keep on the bleeding edge instead of listening to the people that give them free pens.
Ditto for the UK.
Additionally, Doctors can be struck off for accepting freebies from drug companies because the conflict of interest is seen as professional misconduct.
Doctors, especially primary care physicians, have to remember thousands of drugs for hundreds of conditions. In the US, especially, they're typically massively overbooked and don't have time to keep up on new research for unbiased sources. When somebody is stressed out, moving rapidly, relying on memory rather than checking their reference guides, it's easy for them to make decisions that aren't entirely rational.
Consequently, pharma reps are battling for mindshare. No, a doc isn't going to sit there thinking, "Hey, that was a nice drug rep," but is he might thinking, "What was the name of that new antidepressant that worked for my last patient? Oh, right, Lexapro," where Lexapro isn't just the name of an antidepressant that worked, but also happened to be the name emblazoned on the wall clock in his office.
BTW, I'm so god damn sick of the unjustified smugnuss of physicians who act like they're superhuman, and not limited by the same cognitive biases as the rest of humanity.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I used to do IT work for doctor's offices.
There was one clinic I worked for, six physicians and about 10 nurses and 15 other miscellaneous staff.
They had a calendar up in their kitchen where they wrote down future drug rep visits and what kind of food they were bringing so people knew not to get lunch on their own that day.
"June 5 - Pfizer - Tacos
June 8 - Forest - Pizza
June 11 - Merck - Sandwiches"
etc.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Your edit clarified your post, prior to your edit I thought you were saying something other than what you were saying.
You're right, we basically agree.
I do suspect it's worse in the US, though.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I hate pharm ads, seriously.
Oncology medicine is expensive, and these (admittedly awesome and partaken of) meals are not helping bring the price down.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
In the UK (my mother's a GP, I got to hear about this all the time), it used to be that you got stationary or other little things, and so forth, then it escalated to free hampers of food while you listen to the rep's presentation, to actually been taken to a catered location to listen to said presentation (private room in a restaurant, etc.).
About that point the General Medical Council "clarified" the rules to basically "no freebies", and a lot of former pharma reps lost their jobs. The smart ones had already shifted to promoting Veterinary medical products, where the restrictions aren't as severe
It's expensive shit that makes me iffy. If I'd still worked for them, I'd have been a little pissed about the going away party drinks. Giving us sports tickets bothers me. That stuff. Pens and slinkies(woo IBM!)? rock on, it's just fun and name advertising.
I have a problem with it in two ways:
First, physicians are supposed to be professionals and more than that they're professionals who work very hard to promote an aura of authority and knowledge. There is some evidence that pharma reps affect prescribing behavior and a lot of high-profile hospitals and care networks have either banned rep visits entirely or put in policies significantly limiting them because pharma reps are seen as a threat to objectivity.
Second, direct-to-consumer advertising is actually falling a little by by the wayside... it might not show as good a return on investment as previously believed. It seems to work okay for lifestyle drugs like erectile dysfunction and smoking cessation but not on drugs treating bona fide medical conditions.
Now, I oppose, in general, DTC marketing. However, I do like initiatives that promote patient involvement in their own health care and awareness of diseases, which is why I like the Australian model. I have no problem with an ad that says, "Do you know the symptoms of diabetes? They are blah blah blah... there are new treatments for diabetes. If you're concerned you might have diabetes, ask your doctor about the latest treatments. (Paid for by Merck.)" I just want them to stop short of mentioning a specific drug.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I strongly suspect that it happened in the UK without much of a political fight because the drug companies don't need to convince the doctors, the need to convince NICE, who basically decide what treatments and drugs the NHs consider to be cost effective and will pay for.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of the big-money drugs are excluded, especially things like palliative treatments for terminal illnesses.
EDIT:
For what it's worth, these are starting to appear in the UK, which is somewhat new. The latest one is an erectile dysfunction ad paid for by Lilly.
And the reason why there are so many pharm ads on TV compare to 15 years ago is because they weren't allowed on TV 15 years ago. Also, as part of the ads being allowed, they have to report all side effects. Even the crazy, 1-in-a-million side effects that no one will probably ever experience except for one guy in the clinical trial that self-reported it.
Not entirely. They have to report the same side effects that they would be required, by law, to report in a drug monograph. However, they don't actually have to report every side effect in a monograph, they can get away with leaving one off if the risk of it is low enough. I don't know what the threshold is, or even if there's a specific threshold coded by law, but they can get away with leaving off some very, very exotic side effects in some circumstances.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
sounds like a generic lunch n' learn.
If the drug reps are just showing up with samples and literature, which I'm sure some do, I don't have a problem. I have a problem with the kickbacks. If my software vendors were giving me some of the kickbacks I've seen/heard my doctors get/brag about, then I know damn well and good I'd be booted for conflict of interest/ethics violations.
A kickback would be, "If you prescribe our drug, we'll give you money.
It doesn't work that way.
It's more like, "We're going to give you free stuff... and hope you prescribe our drug." That's not a kickback. I don't like it, I don't think doctors should accept it, but I'm a big fan of calling something what it is and not what it is not, and it is not a kickback.
The former suggests a much deeper level of corruption than the latter, which is why elm got upset about the implication of kickbacks earlier in the thread. Just so I'm 100% clear: there is no evidence that I have seen anywhere that suggests that doctors are getting kickbacks for prescribing certain drugs.
There is a separate, but similar issue right now with doctors who give lectures on major diseases getting pharma industry money for promoting their drugs. That's not exactly a kickback either... Pfizer might go to a psychiatrist and say, "Hey, we'll give you $5000 if you talk about the benefits of our new drug Geodon on bipolar disorder." The physician in question in this situation is probably already a fan of Geodon, and therefore isn't lying or doing anything strictly immoral... he's just taking money for doing something he'd do anyway. However, there are legitimate conflict of interest concerns with that happens, especially when that physician is what is known as a KOL (Key Opinion Leader), which means that he's a physician that other physicians turn to when they want advice on what drugs to prescribe.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Doesn't New Zealand allow drug ads on TV, too?
Some say there's no difference between wining-and-dining and bribery when health is involved. When Big Pharma throws out the $800 million cost to develop a new drug, I'd bet dollars to donuts some of the costs for the ads and free wall clocks and such go into that figure, too. It's an inflated figure to intimidate consumers.
also that we had to live in bubbles due to overwhelming allergies