Marketing Overdose

Update from Denmark

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:41:00 +0000

In April the Marketing Overdose blog highlighed a complaint filed by the Danish Consumer Council againtst Pfizer to the Danish Medicines Agency. The company had mentioned one of its own products on a page on its website that should only have provided information about a medical condition.

This, as the Consumer Council rightly pointed out, was in clear violation of Danish Law, which prohibits the advertising of prescription drugs directly to consumers.

To their credit, the Danish Medicines Agency took swift action and ordered Pfizer to remove all references to specific products from the web pages in question.

The Medicines Agency also recently ruled on another of the Consumer Council's complaints. This case involved Panodil (Paracetamol), which was being promoted on a website providing advice about joint pain.

As it is an over-the-counter drug, it is perfectly legal to advertise Panodil directly to the public. However, the Consumer Council found that important information on adverse side effects, dosage recommendations and mixing with certain foods was either entirely absent, or presented in such a way as to make it very difficult for consumers to find.

The Medicines Agency agreed that this was in breach of regulations and asked the website's operator, global pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline, to make the necessary changes.

This blog also reported on a joint letter sent by the Danish Consumer Council and other health organisations to the Minister of Health, expressing concerns about the European Comission (EC)'s 'pharmaceutical package'. They were particularly critical about the legislative proposal concerning the provision of information about prescription medicines to the general public. It is is widely felt that implementing this proposal would pave the way for the legalisation of direct-to-consumer-advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs in European Union (EU) member states.

Proponents of the package claim that this proposal contained within it will only allow pharmaceutical companies to provide 'reliable' information to consumers. Consumer organisations throughout Europe reject this notion, on the grounds that any information provided by a company about its products - apart from data approved by the appropriate authorities - can be considered to be marketing. DTCA is currently only legal in New Zealand and the USA.

The Danish Minister of Health declared his sympathy for these concerns and even read the letter out on national radio. Not long afterwards on 8 and 9 June 2009, the EU Council of Health Ministers expressed strong reservations about the proposal question, with many delegates fearing it would open the door to DTCA.

The proposal will continue to be debated by the Council and by the newly elected European Parliament in the Autumn. The European consumer movement will continue it's efforts to ensure that the interests of patients are respected, and that DTCA does not become a reality in the EU.

International developments in the promotion of prescription drugs

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Consumers International (CI) is currently undertaking a global study on the promotion of prescription medicines in nine countries across five continents. As part of this research, CI is reviewing industry codes of conduct, national legislation and company practices.

Prior to publishing a final report later in the year, CI has released a research briefing to coincide with the 2009 World Health Assembly. This briefing outlines the research methodology used, as well as presenting preliminary analysis on one of the project's key focus areas: the regulation of gift-giving.

The final report will be expanded in scope to cover free samples, medical sales representatives, promotional materials and direct communication with patients. It will draw links between these issues and comment on compliance/enforcement mechanisms.

For more information download the briefing in full, and read the other reports that CI has produced as part of the global Marketing Overdose campaign.

Calls for greater disclosure of doctors' ties to companies in France and Holland

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:22:00 +0000

Dutch Minister of Health Ab Klink recently called for more transparency in the relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare practitioners. Minister Klink made these comments after the release of a report by the Council for Public Health and Healthcare, and independent advisory body to the government. The report found that financial ties between industry, doctors and scientists in The Netherlands are commonplace and frequently non-transparent in nature.

As reported in the Volkskrant newspaper, drug companies are substantial providers of training to doctors and specialists, but often with an emphasis on their own products. They also distribute gifts and bonuses to practitioners, and strongly influence medical research.

Although a proponent of self-regulation, Klink is said to be considering supporting legislation in this area. He has suggested a requirement that any gift over €500 in value should be declared.

Meanwhile, further south, the French consumer organisation UFC-Que Choisir has also stepped up the pressure for proper disclosure of the relationships between doctors and pharma companies. Existing legislation in France requires healthcare professionals to declare any potential conflicts of interest arising from links to industry when speaking publicly about medical products. However, as reported in Le Monde, UFC are concerned that this law is widely being ignored.

They recently filed complaints against nine prominent physicians for not complying with the law. The doctors in question were chosen by UFC because they are considered to be opinion leaders and have a public profile. However, the organisation contends that these individuals represent but a drop in the ocean.

The catalyst for this action was a survey recently undertaken by Formindep, a collective of heath professionals. They monitored the activities of over 150 doctors in the media and at conferences. Although more than 60 had links to drug manufacturers, not one had declared any conflicts of interest.

The complaints were made to all the relevant departmental (provincial) boards of the Order of Physicians. This professional association is responsible for regulating the relationships between doctors and companies, and enforcing the legislation in question.

A representative from one local chapter of the Order countered the allegations, saying that details of the contracts in their possession "are and must remain confidential. (However) due to our own research we have discovered links between, often serious, among some doctors and the pharmaceutical industry,..."

A slightly less polite response was received from a counterpart in a different province: "We do not have to answer your extremely insidious questions."

UFC are calling for a publicly accessible database containing full details of all conflict of interest declarations made by doctors in the country.

Focus on Denmark

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:10:00 +0000

The Danish Consumer Council has filed a formal complaint against Pfizer to the Danish Medicines Agency. They are concerned about a page on the company's Danish website that provides information about incontinence.

As well as background information about the condition, the page clearly identifies three of Pfizer's own products that could be used to treat it. The Consumer Council believes that this effectively constitutes disguised advertising. This violates Danish law, which currently prohibits direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

The Consumer Council have also written a joint letter to the Danish Minister of Health expressing their concerns about the 'pharmacuetical package' recently adopted by the European Commission (EC). The package includes legislative proposals that would lead to changes in the rules governing the provision of information about medicines to patients in European Union member states. They are worried about the increased freedom to communicate directly to consumers about their prescription-only drugs that pharma companies will have under the legislation proposed.

Many experts believe that it's impossible for patients to clearly distinguish between non-promotional information and marketing. Patients have a right to independent, unbiased information, which companies cannot provide due to an obvious conflict of interest. Instead, patients should be encouraged to consult trained healthcare professionals and relevant public authorities.

As pointed out in another joint letter, this time addressed to EC President José Manuel Barroso, and signed by the European Consumers' Organisation: '...existing legislation already allows pharmaceutical companies to provide information to the public on health and diseases (Article 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC). They make most of the opportunities provided by this provision, often going beyond with disease awareness campaigns and even disease mongering. On the other hand, several experiences have shown that pharmaceutical companies fail to disclose important information regarding their products...'

The Danish Consumer Council was also featured in a recent edition of Kontant, a Danish flagship TV current affairs show. The episode explored the issues surrounding disease awareness campaigns, and how unethical promotional practices can contribute to the phenomenon of disease mongering.

It also featured the Marketing Overdose campaign's very own infomercial on the benefits of Strivor, a fictional antidote to the debilitating (and equally fictional) Motivational Deficiency Disorder.

Celebrity Overdose

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:37:00 +0000

ABC News recently turned the spotlight on celebrities who lend their support to disease awareness campaigns while discretely receiving lucrative fees from pharmaceutical companies in return. It would appear that not much has changed since the New York Times highlighted this issue in 2002.

Stars such as Marcia Cross (left), Kathleen Turner, Rob Lowe, Kelsey Grammar, Bob Dole and Cybill Shepherd have all been involved in high profile campaigns funded directly by drug manufacturers. There are even PR firms such as Amy Doner Group that exist soley to match 'well-known personalities from film, television, sports or music with leading pharmaceuticals...and advertising agencies to take their messages directly to the public'. Leading celebrity agents such as Brooks International also appear to offer these services.

In many countries the public put enormous trust in celebrities, and when they speak out in support of causes people listen. And, of course, product endorsements are a well-established and lucrative form of income for many celebrities, proving the influence they have over consumers.

Some would argue that using famous stars in this way is an effective way to raise awareness and encourage people to find out more. But the large payments that celebrities receive, and pharmaceutical companies provide, suggest this is a more commercially inspired activity.

Disease awareness campaigns are meant to raise awareness about a medical condition and encourage people to take preventative action and/or seek treatment. There has been a lot of controversy around the fact that many of these campaigns are industry funded. There is a very thin line between a campaign like this and outright direct-to-consumer advertising, which is illegal in most countries. Critics argue that pharma companies are able to increase their sales by associating themselves or their products with certain medical conditions. There is a danger that in this way companies are effectively able to bypass restrictions and promote prescription medicines directly to consumers. Indeed, as reported previously in this blog, they have often been quite flagrant in doing so.

Advertising is more often about creating needs based on image and aspirations. But promoting prescription drugs is very different to lending one's name to a chocolate bar or a sports shoe; drugs can be lethal if taken by the wrong person or in the wrong dose.

There is also the worry that industry funded awareness raising can contribute to the phenomenon of disease mongering. As it is clearly in their interest to do so, pharma companies often emphasise medical solutions to conditions even when non-medical options would be more appropriate. Prescription medicines should always be taken on the advice of a trained healthcare professional. Consumers need independent, scientific information to inform their decisions, something that pharma companies cannot provide.

Patients down under want greater transparency

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:59:00 +0000

We thank Elena Pasca, of Pharmacritique, for alerting us to the results of an interesting study by the Medical Journal of Australia.

In 2007, 906 patients in and around Sydney were surveyed to gauge their perceptions and opinions on doctors and their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Here's what they had to say:

76% of patients were unaware of any relationship between their doctor and pharma companies
71% wanted to know if their doctor obtained any benefits in cash or kind from the pharma industry
69% wanted to know if their doctor received financial incentives for research participation
61% wanted to know if their doctor received sponsorship to attend conferences
84% agreed that disclosure of competing interests by doctors is important
80% would have more confidence in their doctors' decisions if interests were fully disclosed
78% believed that this disclosure would help them make better informed treatment decisions
78% supported verbal disclosure during consultations

Call for ban on gifts to British doctors

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:19:00 +0000

Medical experts in the UK are calling for an end to gifts to doctors. A new report from the Royal College of Physicians says this would do much to restore patients' faith in prescribers.

According to the report, 'relentless pressure on doctors, exerted by pharmaceutical marketing masquerading as education, is common.' As well as looking at gifts, the report takes a comprehensive look at industry involvement in other areas such as medical conferences, education and research.

Recognising that some consultants would not be able to attend conferences for 'continuing medical education' and improving their skills without drug company support, the report recommends replacing individual sponsorship with an industry-funded pool for doctors to attend events. It also suggests that the National Health Service (NHS) and other medical associations could contribute to these costs.

Among the many issues covered, the report also highlights the industry practice of 'using educational initiatives as promotional tools.' Many undergraduate medical students and doctors in training in the UK are found to lack sufficient 'prescribing knowledge', and 'professional development programmes are too dependent on industry support.' In fact, it is estimated that pharmaceutical companies fund over half of all postgraduate medical education.

In total, the report sets out 42 recommendations on how to improve the relationships between the NHS, academia and industry with the aim of improving patient care and confidence.

As reported last year on this blog, Consumers International (CI) released the results of a survey which found that none of the major drug companies had made a global commitment to disclose their educational grants. Speaking to The Guardian newspaper at the time, CI Head of Campaigns Justin Macmullan said:

"Pharmaceutical companies will tell you that what they are funding is medical education. But our concern is that this is really effective, well-targeted marketing. This throws any notion of impartiality out of the window and jeopardises a doctor's ability to make an informed, balanced decision about the most appropriate treatments."

Controversial weight loss drug available over the counter in Europe

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:04:00 +0000

The European Commission (EC) has decided to make the weight loss pill Alli available to consumers through pharmacies, despite protests from European consumer organisations.

It is widely recognised that a relatively small number of people do need medication to control their weight. But making this pill available without a prescription will inevitably mean fewer people will address issues of diet or lifestyle which are much safer and more reliable weight-control methods.

There is a real risk that the over-the-counter availability of Alli could lead to inappropriate selling, irreponsible marketing and irrational drug use.

Australia's experience of selling weight loss products over the counter should have been a warning to the EC. After conducting a series of mystery shopper trials, the Australian consumer organisation Choice found that pharmacists often failed to ask the right questions and sold the product to women who did not have a weight problem.

Choice was also concerned that the product was being advertised during programmes popular with teenagers, such as Teen Idol.

Consumers International, the global federation of consumer groups, also believes that the EC's decision was not in the interest of consumers and that Alli should remain a prescription drug.

Big pharma on the offensive as Obama is inaugurated

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:30:00 +0000

As Barack Obama is sworn in as President of the United States, big pharma is gearing up for a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to improve it's image.

As well as facing projected growth figures in the low single digits, drug companies are bracing themselves for the combined prospect of a President apparently committed to healthcare reform and Democratic-controlled Congress sympathetic to his aims. The aim of this new media blitz is to reposition themselves as supporters of Obama's vision for universal healthcare coverage.

As recently reported in the New York Times, the industry has also announced a voluntary commitment to stop distributing certain kinds of gifts to doctors. This 'self regulation', they freely admit, is an effort to pre-empt much stronger regulation by a newly empowered Food and Drug Administration.

Many are hoping that President Obama does not, as his predecessors have done, capitulate in the face of the seemingly infinite resources of the pharma lobby and that any overhaul of the US healthcare system includes an end to the unethical promotion of pharmaceuticals currently so commonplace.

Doctors in India cash in

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:23:00 +0000

"Cars, frost-free refrigerators, television sets, digital cameras and silver coins." Just some of the rewards offered to doctors in India by drug manufacturers, such as Torrent Pharmaceutical in Gujarat.

As reported recently in the Times of India (TOI), pharma companies have been distributing 'gold' and 'platinum' coupons to physicians in return for prescribing their products. They are entered into competitions to win prizes, the more coupons the higher the chance of winning.

According to TOI, Torrent Pharmaceutical also took Sri Lankan doctors on a safari trip to Kenya, as well as paying for doctors and their families to attend a conference in Turkey.

Following TOI's article, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Indian Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers wrote to the country's pharma industry associations urging them to "take action" on the "misuse of promotional expenditure". The newspaper, however, was far from impressed by the letter's "mild, almost apologetic tone".

For more on how drug companies influence health in the developing world visit www.marketingOverdose.org and download the Drugs, Doctors and Dinners report.

And the winner of the Marketing Overdose Award for rampant promotion goes to...Eli Lilly!

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:33:00 +0000

Consumers International (CI) has bestowed this dubious honour on the company as part of the Bad Company Awards 2008. As previously reported on this blog and elsewhere, Eli Lilly has run foul of marketing regulations in the promotion of it's erectile dysfunction (ED) drug Cialis on a number of occasions around the world.

With sales of over $1.1 billion, Cialis is one of Lilly's biggest sellers, and no expense has been spared promoting the drug globally. And in doing so the company has been officially censured by British and Australian authorities no less than three times in the past few years.

Analysis by Consumers Union, a CI member organisation in the USA, found TV adverts for the drug to be misleading. They also conducted a study whose results questioned the efficacy of ED drugs compared with other treatments. In 2007 Lilly spent $152million on public promotion of Cialis in the US alone.

Read the Bad Company Awards factsheet to find out more about the hard work Eli Lilly has been putting in to win this prestigious prize!

Pharma spending spree on Capitol Hill

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:51:00 +0000

Drug companies in the US spent a record $168 million on political lobbying in 2007, according to The Center for Public Integrity.

This unprecedented expenditure from Washington's largest lobby has allowed the industry to successfully thwart attempts by the US congress to limit direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA).

They cite the case of Representative Pete Stark, whose Fair Balance Prescription Drug Advertisement Act of 2007 met with considerable resistance from the pharma lobby. This modest bill stopped short of an outright ban on DTCA, but would have provided fiscal incentives to drug companies to run honest ad campaigns.

Rep. Stark had this to say on DTCA: 'All too often, these poorly regulated ads provide incomplete and misleading information about new pills, pushing unnecessary prescriptions and promoting drugs before doctors and scientists have time to learn about their dangers.'

Doctors tire of pharma sales rep visits

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:10:00 +0000

According to recent industry research, doctors in the US are less willing to meet pharma company sales representatives than they were in the past.

Only 56% of physicians will meet with reps and less than one quarter will sacrifice more than two minutes of their time.

PharmedOut have developed a sign for doctors who refuse to see drug reps to dowload, print and display in their offices. The sign explains to patients that these visits are banned because the doctor in question relies on 'scientific information, not marketing,' to decide on an appropriate treatment for them.

There is also a version of the sign for countries with national health systems.

Awareness of drug side-effects under scrutiny

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:00 +0000

French consumer organisation UFC Que Choisir recently highlighted some disturbing findings from a report by the French Agency for Health Product Safety. An estimated 3.6% of all hospital admissions in France are due to the lack of awareness of adverse side effects from drugs prescribed by GPs.

70% of these admissions are related to adverse reactions to drugs, the other 30% are due to different treatments reacting badly with one another.

The agency is calling for GPs to monitor their patients more closely and to stay better informed about the potential side effects of prescription drugs.

EC urged not to ease restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:38:00 +0000

Which?, the UK consumer organisation, is urging the European Commission (EC) not to reverse a ban on direct-to-comsumer advertising (DTCA) for perscription drugs in the EU.

The EC is due to present a 'Pharmaceuticals Package' to the European Parliament in October/November 2008, which will include draft legislation on information to patients. Though apparently stopping at outright advertising, the proposed directive would allow pharmaceutical companies to provide 'additional information' to the public via the media.

Which? expressed their concerns in a letter to the European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, co-signed by leading UK health organisations, including the British Medical Association and the British Pharmacological Society.

Among their worries is the the impact DTCA would have on the British National Health Service (NHS). In the US, where a ban on DTCA has already been lifted, 80% of spending on perscription drugs is on brand name products. 'If we increase the demand for branded medicines' Which? told The Guardian newpaper, 'the NHS drugs bill could go sky high'.

This, they argue, is because patients would increasingly ask their doctors for perscriptions based on direct to patient information from drug companies and not according to their actual needs.

When the Commission launched a consultation on the subject in February 2008, consumer organisations and other stakeholders responded with resounding criticism.

It is claimed that the 'very woolly' wording of the proposal leaves too much open to interpretation. Without a 'clear line between information and advertising', Which? believes consumer information 'will be like letting advertising in through the back door'.

There is also a real concern that, as this directive is bundled into a wider umbrella 'package', it may not get the attention it deserves from lawmakers.

Eli Lilly plans to disclose gifts to doctors...or does it?

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:14:00 +0000

On 24 September 2008, Eli Lilly anounced plans to reveal how much money it pays to physicians in the USA. An online registry, listing payments made to doctors who 'serve the company as speakers and advisors', will be made public by the second half of 2009.

By 2011 this database will be expanded to provide a comprehensive disclosure of financial ties to healthcare professionals along the lines of what would be required if the Physician Sunshine Payments Act became law.

This bill, currently pending in the US Congress would force pharmaceutical companies to disclose how much money they give to doctors through gifts, travel, payments, honoraria and others. Eli Lilly claims to fully endorse the Act and says it is acting unilaterally 'to enhance transparency in health care'.

This position does seem somewhat at odds with recent criticism from Lilly President and CEO, John Lechleiter, concerning a change in Massachusetts State Law. The legislation includes 'a tough new code of conduct for gift-giving', which will see companies reporting to the State Department of Public Health 'any payment or gift of more than $50 to a healthcare professional'.

So, if Eli Lilly is unable to maintain consistency at the regional and national level within one country, what of the rest of the world?

Consumers International (CI) contacted the company in June 2008 regarding another (then) recent promise to disclose educational grants and charitable contributions in the US. In response to queries on why this was not a global commitment, they said they were 'evaluating the possibility of instituting a global financial disclosure policy'.

CI hopes that such a policy is not long in the making and will apply to all the countries in which Eli Lilly operates.

Unbranded DTCA ads may be the new trend in the US

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:27:00 +0000

Major pharmaceutical companies have recently been running TV advertisements in the US that don't mention the name of their product. The ads look and sound more like disease awareness campaigns, however product information is made available on the associated website.

Analysts suggest this is a way to avoid the stipulation that companies must include information about side effects in advertisements that mention the drug. A significant proportion of the commercial's air time can be taken up with this information. The companies may also be making a calculation that this sort of campaign is less easily dismissed by consumers as 'advertising' and as a result it may be prove more effective than traditional ads at creating a market for their products.

Some of the companies that are adopting this form of disease-awareness advertising are Pfizer's Chantix (antismoking drug), Ely Lilly's Evista (osteoporosis) and Sanofi-Aventis' Ambien (insomnia).

Eli Lilly UK TV ad accused of breaking the rules

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:58:00 +0000

Consumers International have complained to the Presciption Medicines Code of Practice Authority about an Eli Lilly TV campaign that they say is effectively breaking the rules that ban direct to consumer advertising in Europe.

Eli Lilly's '40 over 40' campaign was launched in the UK in July with the aim of raising awareness about erectile dysfunction in men over 40 and urging those concerned to make an appointment with their doctor. The campaign is the first UK targeted campaign of this kind to appear on British television.

Under UK rules, direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is not allowed, however 'disease awareness campaigns' are. Of course it's a mute point where 'awareness raising' stops and 'advertising' starts. Sales of Eli Lilly's erectile dysfunction treatment will presumably increase as men watch the TV ad and obediently make appointments with their doctor to discuss their sex lives.

The rules seek to preserve the dubious distinction by requiring that disease awareness campaigns are 'non-promotional' and 'Any information provided ... must not be made for the purpose of encouraging members of the public to ask their doctors or other prescribers to prescribe a specific prescription only medicine.'

Of course Eli Lilly have not mentioned the name of their product in the TV advertisement or the associated website, however in other respects the company has done what it can to push their product over other treatments.

Firstly the company's logo appears on the TV advertisement and on every page of the associated website. Type 'erectile dysfunction' and 'Eli Lilly' into a search engine and it takes less than 30 seconds to identify the name of the company's product.

Not content with that, the treatment page on the website goes further. Eli Lilly have skirted the problem of not being able to name their product by instead referring to it as 'product 1' and placing it at the top of the list of options. Perhaps unsurprisingly the information given about each product suggests 'product 1' is preferable on most criteria when compared with other treatments.

Visitors to the site are then urged to see their doctor and discuss their 'preferences' - a packet of 'product 1' perhaps?

Consumers International run http://www.marketingoverdose.org/

Stanford medical school restricts industry funded medical education

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:32:00 +0000

Stanford School of Medicine has joined other premier schools across the US in further restricting the influence that the drug industry has on medical education. According to the San Fransisco chronicle the latest restrictions mean that the school will no longer allow drug and medical device makers to control the content of continuing education programs they fund at the school.

In the article Dr. Philip Pizzo, dean of the Stanford medical school, said continuing education can only be free of commercial influence if its curriculum is independent from industry funding.
"So much of that is actually directed toward changing prescribing patterns," he said.

Stanford's medical school received $1.87 million, or 38 percent of its funding for continuing medical education courses, from industry in 2006-07. Industry funding nationwide rose from $302 million in 1998 to $1.2 billion in 2006, according to a study cited by the university.

While pharmaceutical companies say they don't dictate the content of the programs they fund, said Dr. Brian Hurley, president of the student association, in reality they do control the outcome. "Pharmaceutical firms will only fund speakers who give favorable messages on the products they're trying to sell," he said.

Stanford Medical School's news release is available here.

Australian GPs bombarded with promotional material

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:57:00 +0000

Doctors in Australia are being bombarded with promotional material from drug companies, according to Choice, Consumers International's member in Australia. In contrast independent providers of information about drugs are barely getting their foot in the door.

The survey of 180 practicing GPs found that doctors were receiving an average of seven visits from drug reps every month plus a mountain of promotional material. Additionally 40% of the doctors in the survey had been sponsored by a drug company to attend a conference, seminar or training session. However only half of the doctors were even aware of the government-funded National Prescribing Service (NPS), an independent nonprofit organisation for quality use of medicines.

Doctors who report weekly contact with drug reps have been found to be more likely than those who have less frequent contact to prescribe drugs without first checking for published clinical evidence of effectiveness

Choice is calling for more support for independent sources of information about drugs and an independent body to monitor drug promotion.

The story was covered in The Australian and on ABC.

Drug companies' educational grants are 'well targeted marketing.'

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:15:00 +0000

Drug companies are accused of spending millions sending doctors on all expenses paid trips to medical conferences according to the Guardian newspaper in the UK. Consumers International, who run the Marketing Overdose campaign, described the practice as 'highly effective, well-targeted marketing.'

The article follows a survey of drug companies' disclosure by Consumers International that showed that none of the major drug companies has made a global commitment to disclosing their educational grants. Some US based companies have committed to disclosing their US grants following pressure from US senator Chuck Grassley. In Australia drug companies give details of their spending to a public register.

Consumers International wrote to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) on 2 July calling for greater disclosure of drug companies' financial support for medical organizations, educational events and financial arrangements with health care professionals, but has yet to receive a response.

Call for a new independent regulator in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:22:00 +0000

Choice - the Australian consumer organisation - has called for a new independent regulator and independent drug detailers to help tidy up drug marketing practices in Australia.

The Choice report 'Pushing Pills' looked at advertisements that appear in doctors' magazines and concluded that they were both misleading and tended to promote new and expensive drugs rather than long standing, cheaper but also effective treatments.

In 2006, when the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) approved the latest version of the Marketing Code, written by the self regulatory body Medicines Australia, the ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuel concluded, "it is unclear how effective [the Code] is in actually regulating drug companies' conduct". Unfortunately, the law does not allow the competition regulator to make major changes to the Code.

Belgian rules on drug advertising to be tightened

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:12:00 +0000

A recent BMJ article reveals the Belgian government’s decision “to strengthen existing controls” on drug advertising after an advertisement was challenged by Test Achats, the Belgian consumers organization.

In Belgium, it is illegal to advertise pharmaceutical products where the costs are reimbursed through the social security system. However, the law is unclear when an “advertisement refers only to an illness and not to a drug”. Rudy Demotte, the public health minister, stated the new legislation would grant the future committee the “power to scrutinise all public health advertising and information campaigns” to clear up any future uncertainty.

Test Achats clashed with Hodie Viveres, a non-profit public health foundation, over an advertisement on the “public dangers of athlete’s foot”. Test Achats claimed the advertisement was in effect promoting the drug Terbinafine. Terbinafine is a refundable drug under the social security system and was used to treat 80% of cases of athlete’s foot in 2002.

South Africa – attacks on generics

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:00:00 +0000

The National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAPM) in South Africa has successfully challenged three companies (Jansen Cillag, GSK and Pfizer) for undermining the market for generics.

Following a challenge from NAPM, Jansen Cillag were found guilty by the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASASA) for an advertisement entitled ‘illusion’ that NAPM said contained a ‘misleading and disparaging argument aimed at creating doubt in the minds of readers about the safety, quality and efficacy of generics in South Africa.’

NAPM has also had a successful ruling at the ASASA against GSK for material sponsored by the company that ASASA believed undermined confidence in generics.

Finally NAPM has also successfully challenged a leaflet produced by Pfizer Laboratories (Pty) Ltd that NAPM said created misperceptions about generic medicines and confusion for both health care professionals and the patients.

The NAPM complaint was upheld by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), however - to date - there is no information on the IFPMA website as to what penalty Pfizer Laboratories (Pty) Ltd received.

Globalising ethical marketing standards

noreply@blogger.com (the CI Editor) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:18:00 +0000

An article from Business Week in India looks at the chances of implementing drug companies' recent US commitments in India.

On the one hand the article notes that the US announcements on promotional gifts should lead to a tightening of marketing rules around the world. The alternative would be for large international drug companies to use marketing practices in one region that they have deemed inappropriate in another - a clear display of double standards.

But, on the other hand, the article rightly notes that these are voluntary standards - often swept aside in the face of stiff competition between the companies. And certainly the comments in the article from industry and the medical profession suggest a defensiveness and lack of willingness to engage with the problem.