Pfizer to stop DTC ads for Celebrex
I find it interesting (not to mention appropriate, in this case) that Pfizer is stopping direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for Celebrex. DTC advertising has indirectly cost the pharmaceutical industry dearly in terms of PR this year. As I mentioned in my last post, DTC ads for COX-2 inhibitors -- drugs which were intended for use in specific situations where patients showed risk for GI bleeding -- were one of the root causes of any overprescription of these drugs; and overprescription is one of the root causes for so many people feeling the side effects of the coxibs.
DTC advertising is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it obviously gets the name of the new whiz-bang drugs into people's heads (and it often hits their wallets as well, since frequently a 1-week free trial is offered) which makes great financial sense. On the other, though, it can lead people down the wrong path. Vioxx was not a blockbuster because there were that many people out there with arthritis and risk of GI bleeding; it was a blockbuster because people heard of a new and spiffy drug for arthritis, and since it's new, it must be better... and history is made.
As an interesting aside, the vast majority of FDA warning letters to pharmaceutical companies for the second half of 2004 have applied to promotional material. Not only do people have the sense that new is better, but pharma companies have been becoming bolder about making unsupported claims to boot. These are big-name companies, too, with a lot to lose; they know the gamble is worthwhile.
Obviously, eliminating DTC advertising is not the whole solution; there is still provider advertising, and there is still the human feeling (on the parts of both some doctors as well as patients!) that newer is better to contend with. The fact of the matter is that some advertising needs to exist, if not to get the word out about new therapies, then to make sure that pharma companies keep making money (for if there is no money, there is no pipeline.) It's just one piece of the puzzle.
DTC advertising is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it obviously gets the name of the new whiz-bang drugs into people's heads (and it often hits their wallets as well, since frequently a 1-week free trial is offered) which makes great financial sense. On the other, though, it can lead people down the wrong path. Vioxx was not a blockbuster because there were that many people out there with arthritis and risk of GI bleeding; it was a blockbuster because people heard of a new and spiffy drug for arthritis, and since it's new, it must be better... and history is made.
As an interesting aside, the vast majority of FDA warning letters to pharmaceutical companies for the second half of 2004 have applied to promotional material. Not only do people have the sense that new is better, but pharma companies have been becoming bolder about making unsupported claims to boot. These are big-name companies, too, with a lot to lose; they know the gamble is worthwhile.
Obviously, eliminating DTC advertising is not the whole solution; there is still provider advertising, and there is still the human feeling (on the parts of both some doctors as well as patients!) that newer is better to contend with. The fact of the matter is that some advertising needs to exist, if not to get the word out about new therapies, then to make sure that pharma companies keep making money (for if there is no money, there is no pipeline.) It's just one piece of the puzzle.
posted by m at 7:38 AM
<< Home