Pharmaceutical Advertising

bleg

Just heard an ad there about testosterone deficiency sponsored by Bayer. This is in addition to the thrush ads that Bayer are running too. I think these "health tips" started with Pfizer and their anti smoking ads but are becoming more common now with Bayer following suit.


Any thoughts?

SomeDose

bleg wrote: »

Just heard an ad there about testosterone deficiency sponsored by Bayer. This is in addition to the thrush ads that Bayer are running too. I think these "health tips" started with Pfizer and their anti smoking ads but are becoming more common now with Bayer following suit.


Any thoughts?

My thoughts? I think it's the thin end of the wedge which is ultimately heading towards direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs - something I've a real problem with. DTC is currently illegal in Ireland and the UK, and this type of "sponsored health awareness" is how the pharma companies can subtly get the public to ask about their drugs instead. I don't know about Ireland, but in the UK there are also frequent TV ads about male impotence and erectile dysfunction...something along the lines of "don't be embarrassed and suffer in silence, treatment is available so talk to your doctor about it etc". Now of course this is all very sound and sensible advice, except that not by coincidence it happens to be sponsored by the manufacturers of the blockbuster drug Viagra. So you can see why they'd want to encourage people to see their GP about it.

DTC is permitted in the US, as anyone who's seen US television will be acutely aware. When I was there, I couldn't believe the amount of drug advertising on TV...literally 2 or 3 drug ads per commercial break. And it's not just "simple" drugs like viagra or the latest anti-hypertensive agent...I'm talking about mega-expensive cutting edge monoclonal antibodies and biological drugs like adalimumab (Humira). All done in that cheesy american "Speak to your doctor today about Humira..." voice-over accompanied by images of tanned retirees with bleached teeth, living an idyllic carefree lifestyle.

I'd be interested to see an analysis correlating the effects of DTC (and sponsored health awareness) on actual health outcomes. I'd also love to know their effect on the government's drug budget...although I suspect I already know the answer to that one.

I don't like it.

PhysiologyRocks

I think it's a bit like being able to google your condition.

Knowing of these drugs may increase awareness, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

What happens when a patient wants an unsuitable drug? Or wants something specific, when there are better options out there?

It seems to undermine the roles of healthcare professionals, to the detriment of the patient. Before we know it, people will be able to sue if they don't get exactly what they want prescribed.

anotherlostie

Like it or not, the internet has made drug information accessible to all.

I would rather see people able to go to the drug company's website and find the information than some random website where there is no guarantee that the information is correct.

I always think DTC is counterproductive with the hilarious rushed list of side effects at the end of the ad, but big pharma wouldn't spend the money if it didn't think it worked.

drkpower

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

I think it's a bit like being able to google your condition.

Knowing of these drugs may increase awareness, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

What happens when a patient wants an unsuitable drug? Or wants something specific, when there are better options out there?.

Then the doctor has to explain to the patient why a drug is unsuitable, or why another is more suitable. That is a doctors job. Patient awareness is, in almost all cases, a good thing. It may make a doctor's job a ittle more tricky in some cases, but overall, increased awareness by a patient of their condition should be a positive development and should be welcomed, not feared.

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

It seems to undermine the roles of healthcare professionals, to the detriment of the patient. Before we know it, people will be able to sue if they don't get exactly what they want prescribed.

That is a little hysterical!
There is no chance of someone sueing (succesfullly) if a doctor refuses to prescribe any treatment that would be detrimental to a patient's condition, merely on the basis that the patient has requested that treatment.

PhysiologyRocks

drkpower wrote: »

Then the doctor has to explain to the patient why a drug is unsuitable, or why another is more suitable. That is a doctors job. Patient awareness is, in almost all cases, a good thing. It may make a doctor's job a ittle more tricky in some cases, but overall, increased awareness by a patient of their condition should be a positive development and should be welcomed, not feared.

That is a little hysterical!
There is no chance of someone sueing (succesfullly) if a doctor refuses to prescribe any treatment that would be detrimental to a patient's condition, merely on the basis that the patient has requested that treatment.

Firstly, I wasn't being completely serious. Then, the little part that was serious was referring to the fact that as humans, not all patients are completely rational and reasonable even when the doctor does explain.

I was also referring to the fact that society likes to sue. I exaggerated, yes, but was largely entertaining myself on a Friday off.

My apologies if I offended anyone.

drkpower

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

My apologies if I offended anyone.

I dont think anything you said was offensive!

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

Then, the little part that was serious was referring to the fact that as humans, not all patients are completely rational and reasonable even when the doctor does explain..

No they are not. And that is where the role of a doctor as a communicator comes in. That is as much a part of the job as being a diagnostician. A patient is only in your surgery for a few minutes, they are on their own for the vast majority of the time. You need to be able to communicate to a patient what is right, what is advisable. And if their own level of awareness of their condition is high, even if initially partially misguided, that will increase their chances of 'doing the right thing' when they leave your surgery.

PhysiologyRocks

drkpower wrote: »

No they are not. And that is where the role of a doctor as a communicator comes in. That is as much a part of the job as being a diagnostician. A patient is only in your surgery for a few minutes, they are on their own for the vast majority of the time. You need to be able to communicate to a patient what is right, what is advisable. And if their own level of awareness of their condition is high, even if initially partially misguided, that will increase their chances of 'doing the right thing' when they leave your surgery.

You are, of course, right. I'm all for clear communication.

The ads don't quite sit right with me - suppose I'm not entirely certain why. Although maybe I just need to get with the times!

HQvhs

PhysiologyRocks wrote: »

You are, of course, right. I'm all for clear communication.

The ads don't quite sit right with me - suppose I'm not entirely certain why. Although maybe I just need to get with the times!

I'll have to agree with you there. I really don't like the idea of pharmaceuticals being advertised. I just can't see any advantages to it for the public or for doctors. It only seems to benefit the pharmaceutical companies.

I could well be wrong, maybe I am behind the times. But I think advertising prescription drugs could send us down a slippery slope of over-medicalising everything, and exacerbating addiction to prescription drugs.

nesf

On one hand it's "free" public health advertising which can only be a good thing. On the other it's very hard to get over the Bayer advert about Thrush which uses the Canesten colour scheme for the text in it.

Piste

Ohh....I thought it was an ad for Canesten? I don't really pay much attention to ads, so it's a little worrying that just looking at the colour scheme and seeing it was about thrush made me think "huh, that there's an ad for Canesten"

drkpower

nesf wrote: »

On one hand it's "free" public health advertising which can only be a good thing. On the other it's very hard to get over the Bayer advert about Thrush which uses the Canesten colour scheme for the text in it.

Its a tricky balance, alright.

I was initially perturbed by them but I'm beginning to be swayed by the argument that they can fulfill a public health function that the State doent usually provide.

I would be intereted to know what effect that these ads which highlight a condition has on the sales of Brand X (who paid for the ad) as opposed to the sales of Brand Y (their competitor). The vast majority of people watching these ads will have no idea what particular drug is manufactured by a certain drug company, and therefore, while they may be prompted to seek treatment, they are unlikely to specifically request one particular type of drug, or, if they do, they are unlikely to care if their GP suggests another that they feel is more efficacious or cheaper.

nesf

drkpower wrote: »

I would be intereted to know what effect that these ads which highlight a condition has on the sales of Brand X (who paid for the ad) as opposed to the sales of Brand Y (their competitor). The vast majority of people watching these ads will have no idea what particular drug is manufactured by a certain drug company, and therefore, while they may be prompted to seek treatment, they are unlikely to specifically request one particular type of drug, or, if they do, they are unlikely to care if their GP suggests another that they feel is more efficacious or cheaper.

Where it really pays dividends is where one company has a majority presence in a particular disease's treatment. So Pfizer with Viagra for impotence or Bayer with Canesten for Thrush (there are other thrush medicines but Canesten is very prevalent from what I've seen in pharmacies).

This would also explain why you don't see ads talking about bipolar, diabetes or other conditions where the drug markets are more competitive and no one company dominates enough to benefit from this kind of general advertising.

drkpower

nesf wrote: »

Where it really pays dividends is where one company has a majority presence in a particular disease's treatment. So Pfizer with Viagra for impotence or Bayer with Canesten for Thrush (there are other thrush medicines but Canesten is very prevalent from what I've seen in pharmacies).

This would also explain why you don't see ads talking about bipolar, diabetes or other conditions where the drug markets are more competitive and no one company dominates enough to benefit from this kind of general advertising.

No doubt that is their motivation; but it doesnt necessarily make it a bad thing. If a particular drugCo has a practical monopoly on an effective treatment, it is not necessarily a negative that more people are obtaining that treatment, as long as it is an appropriate treatment. And it is a doctors job to determine that.

nesf

drkpower wrote: »

No doubt that is their motivation; but it doesnt necessarily make it a bad thing. If a particular drugCo has a practical monopoly on an effective treatment, it is not necessarily a negative that more people are obtaining that treatment, as long as it is an appropriate treatment. And it is a doctors job to determine that.

Aye, most of the problem with D2C advertising for prescription drugs is that it adversely affects drug choice. When there's already a monopoly this isn't a problem though you raise a different problem of unnecessary treatments being asked for though pharmacists would probably be a fair prevention of most of this happening.

bleg

Piste wrote: »

Ohh....I thought it was an ad for Canesten? I don't really pay much attention to ads, so it's a little worrying that just looking at the colour scheme and seeing it was about thrush made me think "huh, that there's an ad for Canesten"

Job done. Money justified.



No offence at all directed or meant. Just shows the power of advertising