The Ethical Nag

"FACTS DO NOT CEASE TO EXIST BECAUSE THEY ARE IGNORED." - Aldous Huxley

Top 10 most misleading drug ads

February 22, 2010 Carolyn Thomas 3 comments

Forbes ran an interesting piece last month on the fine line in Big Pharma between promoting a new drug and presenting a misleading picture of its risk and benefits. In fact, the American Food & Drug Administration regularly singles out drug companies that use questionable language to imply or suggest their drug is superior to similar treatments, and watches closely for the omission of dangerous risk and side effect information. Forbes recently ran an online slide show of the 10 most misleading drug ads that have been slapped with FDA warning letters.

For example, actress Brooke Shields is the spokeswoman for Latisse, a prescription eyelash thickening agent. Yes, there is such a thing. In September 2009, the FDA went after Latisse’s maker, Allergan, for a website that downplayed the drug’s serious risks which include cornea infections, hair growth outside of the treatment area, and permanent darkening of eye color.

Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Steven Nissen, who is a fierce critic of drug ads, observed:

“It’s almost impossible for the public to actually parse the ads and come to their own independent conclusions.”

But Dr. Nissen is suspicious of most drugs that are advertised because he thinks that the marketing campaigns distract and mislead consumers. His advice: avoid the most heavily advertised drugs and stick to generics. Read more…

Harvard’s ethical ultimatum to doc: give up Big Pharma moonlighting jobs, or lose Harvard teaching post

February 18, 2010 Carolyn Thomas 2 comments

Boston physician Dr. Lawrence DuBuske was given a choice: either stop moonlighting as a paid speaker for pharmaceutical companies, or quit your job at a top Harvard University teaching hospital. To the surprise of some, DuBuske, an allergy and asthma specialist, will resign from Brigham and Women’s Hospital after two decades there, the hospital told the Boston Globe last month. As a result, Harvard will also terminate his appointment.

DuBuske (that’s him on the left with his Ukrainian-born wife Ilona, who coincidentally works for DuBuske’s home-based Immunology Research Institute of New England) is no ordinary speaker. Out of thousands of doctors hired by drug giant GlaxoSmithKline to help market its products, he was the highest paid during a three-month period last year, according to GSK disclosure statements. He made $99,375 for giving 40 talks to other physicians last April, May, and June. That’s almost one every other day.

DuBuske seems to be everywhere, with recent speaking stops spread from Boston to Buenos Aires, Poland, and Russia. Six other pharmaceutical companies also use him as a speaker, and he is a consultant for a half dozen drugmakers, according to information he disclosed while teaching continuing medical education courses.

The disclosures did not mention how much he was paid for all this other work. It does make one wonder how on earth does he have any time left over to be a real doctor? Read more…

Why the Olympics are bad business

February 14, 2010 Carolyn Thomas 11 comments

I am outnumbered. I am one of the few people I know who are anti-Olympics. I say this with a wee pang of sadness because I used to be a bit of a Games Junkie, having spent years working with the organizing committee when my own city of Victoria hosted the Commonwealth Games here in 1994. But the world has changed since then. Doping scandals, corporate sponsorship bullying, pervasive commercialism, anti-terrorist security, political interference, questionable IOC integrity, and obscene taxpayer-funded pricetags combine to make me shake my head and ask: “Why are we doing this?”

The event is no longer even about athletic achievement. We already hold world championships in each sport for that.

We are wise to question Olympics boosterism. But I can hear you asking: “What about all the economic benefits of hosting an Olympic event?

Mega-events like the Olympics need bottomless pots of public money for venues, infrastructure improvements and staging the Games. Economist Dr. Jeffrey Owen of Indiana State University is the author of Estimating The Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games published in The Industrial Geographer Journal. He explains that, in order to justify spending all those taxpayer dollars, economic impact studies are often commissioned.

These economic impact studies invariably project inflow of billions of dollars that guarantee a longterm positive effect on the economy through things like job creation and visitor spending. So it may seem shocking when Dr. Owen joins other senior economists in exploding the myth of Olympic Games and their financial benefits:

“To date, there has not been a single study of an Olympics or other large-scale sporting event that has found empirical evidence of significant economic impacts.”

Dr. Owen also maintains that the prevalence of economic impact studies has led to automatic acceptance of their findings by the public, the media, even among academic circles with little or no critical evaluation - not to mention countless billable hours from all those happy economic impact study consultants.

“Because of the high profile of such events, large (and positive) economic effects are taken as given; the studies confirm what is already believed.” Read more…

How Big Pharma spends $20 billion a year on marketing their drugs to you

February 10, 2010 Carolyn Thomas Leave a comment

Pharmaceutical companies spend about twice as much on marketing their drugs every year as they do on research and development of new medications. And it’s a pretty impressive marketing budget. The Wall Street Journal recently reported how marketing numbers broke down last year. The figures don’t include the value of free drug samples that companies distribute – the largest single marketing expense.

The other major categories include:

$12 billion for “detailing,” the industry term for sending sales reps to talk to doctors, nurses and other providers. Spending on detailing was highest for statins (such as Pfizer’s Lipitor), antidepressants (like Forest’s Lexapro) and antipsychotics (like Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Abilify). In each of those categories, branded drugs are competing against generics for a big market.

$4.7 billion for Direct-To-Consumer (“Ask your doctor”) advertising, and an additional $400 million on advertising in professional journals. TV ads accounted for almost 62% of drug company ad spending, print ads made up 35% and online ads 4%.

$3.4 billion for sponsoring professional meetings and events. This includes sponsoring courses and talks that doctors can attend (or watch online) in order to satisfy requirements for continuing medical education (known as CME). Industry-funding of CME has been getting some negative attention lately, with some physicians and academics calling for public disclosure of who pays for what.

Read the entire Wall Street Journal article.