AMA calls for an end to direct to consumer drug marketing

[JoeH]

pdq wrote:
Good on the AMA.

Does anyone believe drug companies spending bazillions on advertising is a good thing? e.g:

[quote=Science Blogs]Nexium is actually a drug which should never have even been approved by the FDA. It really is only prescribed because of intense marketing because, logically, it has no business on the market and is no different than an existing drug [ie now-generic and less expensive] prilosec. Why would doctors irrationally prescribe this drug then? Because advertising encourages irrational choices.

Exactly! Or to be more precise, a small fraction of the population does not possess the ability to use both enantiomers present of the active ingredient - omeprazole - marketed as Prilosec. Prior to Nexium being released, which is just a single enantiomer of the active ingredient, patients who fell into that small group just were given twice as much. So Nexium was not actually that different/needed.

[rgG]

I have been saying this to my husband for a while now.

[jdc]

Black wrote:
[quote=jdc]
But I WANT TO BE JUST LIKE ALL THOSE SUPER HAPPY PEOPLE IN THOSE ADS!!!

Invariably the people they show seem to be drifting in a mildly euphoric state, with no sign of being able to work or lead productive lives apart from dressing neatly and playing frisbee with their golden retriever-- sort of a non-existence. Considering all the money that goes into that marketing, there must be evidence that living in a dream-like state is what people want.
I see blissfully happy people without a care in the world, able to not have to care about work, or the money it costs to take your $1000 pure bred retriever on a $20,000 2 week vacation to their second home -- an awesome one on the beach...

[DeusxMac]

pdq wrote:
Good on the AMA.

Does anyone believe drug companies spending bazillions on advertising is a good thing? e.g:

[quote=Science Blogs]Nexium is actually a drug which should never have even been approved by the FDA. It really is only prescribed because of intense marketing because, logically, it has no business on the market and is no different than an existing drug [ie now-generic and less expensive] prilosec. Why would doctors irrationally prescribe this drug then? Because advertising encourages irrational choices.

I remember the product roll-out advertising for Nexium
Their radio ads never stated the name of the drug nor what it did; they merely mentioned the "purple pill" and "ask you doctor about" it.
Shameful.

[michaelb]

I assume there would some 1st amendment argument that allows this and would make a ban difficult. The FDA could probably regulate claims in ads more carefully. It would also be nice not to allow or to limit the cost of advertising in the price of drugs for Medicare and for drugs in exchange plans.

[rgG]

michaelb wrote:
I assume there would some 1st amendment argument that allows this and would make a ban difficult. The FDA could probably regulate claims in ads more carefully. It would also be nice not to allow or to limit the cost of advertising in the price of drugs for Medicare and for drugs in exchange plans.

Well, they banned tobacco ads on TV.

[Michael]

Here's a bit of information about drug advertising and the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou...071964.htm

And some FAQs: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou...rtisements

[M A V I C]

I'm going to create my own drug. It's called "Leftoutium". It's for all those people who feel like they're missing out from all the cool prescription drugs they see advertised. I'll use statements like "Are you disappointed that those good looking people having fun in drug ads are excluding you from being like them because you don't take their meds? Now's your chance to join the club." I'd show shots of people being left out of the crowd, then when they pop the pill, they get invited over.

I'm not sure on pricing. Maybe $50 for a week's supply. It'd just be a sugar pill, but it would come in some cool packaging and have a cool web site.

michaelb wrote:
I assume there would some 1st amendment argument that allows this and would make a ban difficult. The FDA could probably regulate claims in ads more carefully. It would also be nice not to allow or to limit the cost of advertising in the price of drugs for Medicare and for drugs in exchange plans.

If that were true, why do restrictions on tobacco advertising exist?

[DavidS]

DeusxMac wrote:

I remember the product roll-out advertising for Nexium
Their radio ads never stated the name of the drug nor what it did; they merely mentioned the "purple pill" and "ask you doctor about" it.
Shameful.

If I remember correctly, the FDA regulations stated that if the company advertised what the drug does, they also had to list potential side effects (i.e. "up to and not including death").

Allegra had someone wind surfing through a field of wheat. That was all, just "ask you doctor if Allegra is right for you."

[Black]

I thought the side effects were what attracted people to the drugs. Like the use of death imagery to market cigarettes.