Consumer Reports, long a critic of drug advertising, recently introduced a new feature on its website: AdWatch. In the first episode, an Associate Editor picks apart the claims made in an ad for GlaxoSmithKline’s (NYSE:GSK) drug, Requip. The ad pitches Requip as a treatment for “Restless Legs Syndrome,” or RLS. RLS, while a real condition, has been massively overhyped by ads for drugs such as Requip. (For an excellent discussion of this, see “Giving Legs to Restless Legs: A Case Study of How the Media Helps Make People Sick” in the free journal Public Library of Science – Medicine) Requip is a drug that was originally used for Parkinson’s Disease.
Here’s Consumer Report’s very clever and thorough deconstruction of the ad:
John Mack reports on the Pharmaceutical Marketing Blog that this critique angered folks at the Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation. Guess who’s a major sponsor of this alleged consumer group? Why, GlaxoSmithKline, of course, the maker of Requip! Here’s what John Mack wrote about this today:
However, CR does have a HUGE readership that I can only dream of! As a result, its attack on Requip drew the attention of the Restless Leg Syndrome Foundation, the supposedly grassroots patient advocacy group with suspicious monetary and corporate ties to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the marketer of Requip (see posts cited above).
The RLS Foundation issued this clarion call to its “members”:
“We wanted to apprise everyone on our mailing list of some bad press for RLS. We want to encourage you to ‘fight back’.
“A video on consumerreports.org promises ‘relief from restless legs hype.’ The RLS Foundation is taking a tough stand against this type of bad press for RLS.
“Click here to watch this extremely sarcastic and insulting video for yourself. Then, click here to read the RLS Foundation’s response to this video.
“The RLS Foundation is calling for drastic measures to respond to this video. We aren’t concerned that they are reporting on a drug. We are concerned that they are mocking a condition that so many people live with everyday. We encourage you to respond to this advertisement immediately. If you are a subscriber of Consumer Reports, we encourage you to cancel your subscription….”
We applaud Consumer Reports for its new AdWatch feature and for examining the Requip ad. While RLS is a real condition and some people will get relief from drugs such as Requip, the shameless overmarketing of it through ads like this is enormously harmful. The purpose of drug ads is to expand the market for the advertised drug, to convince as many people as possible that they need a particular drug, even if they don’t actually need it. Since 2005, we have been calling attention to and critiquing particularly troublesome drug ads through our Bitter Pill Awards: Exposing Drug Company Manipulation of Consumers. We’re glad to be in the company of Consumer Reports in our efforts.
The New York Times ran an excellent op-ed on Sept 21, “Shy on Drugs,” by Christopher Lane. Professor Lane takes psychiatrists to task for too readily diagnosing shy children as having “social anxiety disorder.” He pins a chunk of the blame on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM” for short), the diagnostic bible of the psychiatric profession:
[A] glance at the manual reveals that the diagnostic criteria for shyness are far from clear. The third edition, which was published in 1980, said that a person could receive a diagnosis of what was then called “social phobia” if he was afraid of eating alone in restaurants, avoided public restrooms or was concerned about hand-trembling when writing checks.
The same guidelines could hardly apply to youngsters heading to kindergarten, children not yet potty-trained and toddlers just learning to eat. So in 1987, the revised third edition of the manual expanded the list of symptoms by adding anticipated concern about saying the wrong thing, a trait known to just about everyone on the planet. The diagnostic bar was set so low that even a preschooler could trip over it.
The definition of this “disorder” then sets the stage for wholesale manipulation by pharmaceutical companies all too eager to offer up a pharmaceutical solution:
Then, having alerted the masses to their worrisome avoidance of public restrooms, the psychiatrists needed a remedy. Right on cue, GlaxoSmithKline [NYSE:GSK], the maker of Paxil, declared in the late 1990s that its antidepressant could also treat social anxiety and, presumably, self-consciousness in restaurants. Nudged along by a public-awareness campaign (“Imagine Being Allergic to People”) that cost the drug maker more than $92 million in one year alone…social anxiety quickly became the third most diagnosed mental illness in the nation, behind only depression and alcoholism. Studies put the total number of children affected at 15 percent — higher than the one in eight who psychiatrists had suggested were shy enough to need medical help.
In June [2005], the FDA issued a warning letter to GlaxoSmithKline for its “Hello, My Name is.” television ad campaign for Paxil. The FDA said that this ad wrongfully “suggests that anyone experiencing anxiety, fear, or self-consciousness in social or work situations is an appropriate candidate for Paxil CR” when these are simply not approved uses of the drug. Despite the warning letter, the harm had already been done as millions of consumers had already seen the ad.
This type of marketing, and the widespread diagnosing of shy children (and adults) as having a medical disorder as opposed to run of the mill shyness, is often cited as an example of “disease mongering.” It’s a symptom of a larger problem — the medicalization of an ever-increasing portion of the spectrum of normal human behavior. Anything that deviates from some pharmaceutically-determined median is now a candidate for an expensive, brand-name drug, from how shy we are to whether or not we occasionally can’t sleep to whether our legs twitch when we sit still to whether we have toenail fungus.
The prescribing of expensive, strong and often dangerous prescription drugs to ever growing numbers of children with shyness is ironically happening at the same time that an also every growing numbers of children are being prescribed expensive, strong and often dangerous prescription drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Children generally are being prescribed more and more prescription drugs, even when such drugs have often not been tested on or approved for children. (We reported on another example recently: “Doctors widely prescribing drugs for kids’ sleep problems”)
There are no doubt some children who benefit from SSRIs such as Paxil and drugs for ADHD, for whom the benefits outweigh the often considerable risks. But they are undoubtedly a fraction of those children who are prescribed these drugs. We as a society are turning too quickly to the pharmacist for a solution to complex issues. Shyness, inability to pay attention, hyperactivity — these are not merely — or often even primarily, if at all — medical or biochemical issues. They’re affected by a broad range of factors, such as class size, nutrition, sleep, the quality of housing and one’s environment, the stability of home and family life, etc. It’s far easier to write a prescription than to tackle these larger problems. But the underlying problems will remain. Pharmaceutical companies are all too willing to pitch their solution, regardless of the harm it causes or whether it actually addresses any underlying problem.
Zelnorm, a drug that was approved in 2002 for short-term treatment of women with “irritable bowel syndrome” and in 2004 for chronic constipation for men and women under age 65, was withdrawn from the market in March 2007 after studies showed an increased risk of heart attacks and heart problems.
Zelnorm was also very aggressively advertised and promoted, particularly through infamous TV ads showing people with wavy lines and messages written on their stomachs. These ads, and the overall promotional campaign of which they were a part, didn’t just market Zelnorm — they also marketed “Irritable Bowel Syndrome” (IBS) as a condition, working to convince millions of viewers that they have “IBS,” rather than more conventional occasional and symptomatic digestive problems.
By the time Novartis voluntarily withdrew Zelnorm from the market in March 2007, millions of people had taken it, and certainly many who did not truly have IBS or chronic constipation. Novartis racked up $560 million in Zelnorm U.S. sales in 2006 – not technically a “blockbuster” (a term reserved for drugs with at least $1 billion in annual sales), but not too shabby either. As Ed Silverman at Pharmalot pointed out back in March:
The review showed that only 0.1 percent of 11,600 Zelnorm patients, or 13 people, experienced serious heart problems; one died. Of 7,000 placebo patients, 0.01 percent of the patients, or just one person, reported cardiovascular problems. In medical terms, the absolute risk of a serious problem was small, but the relative risk was high.
More than 2.6 million prescriptions were written for Zelnorm in 2006. If the 0.1 percent rate of patients holds true, that would mean that 2,600 of those 2.6 million had heart problems. It’s likely that, due to the aggressive advertising, a significant portion of those 2.6 million did not in fact have IBS. These patients were thus unnecessarily exposed to this heart attack risk – a risk that may be small, but even a small unnecessary risk is still unnecessary. This week, the FDA permitted Zelnorm to return to the market under a very restricted program. The FDA’s press release described it:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it is permitting the restricted use of Zelnorm (tegaserod maleate) under a treatment investigational new drug (IND) protocol to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in women younger than 55 who meet specific guidelines.
In some instances, patients with a serious or life-threatening disease or condition who are not enrolled in a clinical trial may be treated with a drug not approved by the FDA. Generally, such use is allowed within guidelines called a treatment IND, when no comparable or satisfactory alternative drug or therapy is available.
In addition to the age and gender restrictions, the IND protocol for Zelnorm limits use of the drug to those with IBS-C or CIC whose physicians decide the drug is medically necessary. Patients must sign consent materials to ensure they are fully informed of the potential risks and benefits of Zelnorm.
For this population, the benefits of Zelnorm may outweigh the risks. But the aggressive ad campaign resulted in millions of people taking it for whom the benefits most certainly did not outweigh the risks.
And therein lies one of the main problems with Direct to Consumer Advertising of drugs: Drugs that may be important for a small subset of patients are instead marketed to all consumers, causing many people who don’t need the drug to ask their doctors for prescriptions for it, and for their doctors to prescribe them. By the time side effects that only surface after the drug has been on the market for several years have finally surfaced, millions of people who didn’t need the drug have taken it, and been exposed to that unnecessary risk (not to mention expense).
Vioxx is the most famous example of this. More than 20 million people took it, despite the fact that only 1-2% were actually at risk of the ulcers and gastric complications that Vioxx was designed to prevent. Vioxx was never any better at pain relief than pennies-a-pill over-the-counter ibuprofen. Its only advantage was a (somewhat) lower risk of gastrointestinal problems. But the majority of the 20 million people who took it did so not because they had ulcers, but because they saw the ads featuring Dorothy Hammill skating again after taking Vioxx.
One change that some have pushed to deal with this is to require a delay or moratorium on drug advertising for some period of time after a drug is approved. Provisions to require this were originally in the Congressional bills to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), but did not make it into the final House and Senate versions. PhRMA’s “Guiding Principles on Direct to Consumer Advertisements” call for companies to voluntarily wait an unspecified “appropriate amount of time to educate health professionals about a new medicine or a new therapeutic indication before commencing the first DTC advertising campaign.”
Delays and moratoria might reduce the number of people who are exposed to such side effects, but they don’t address the core problems of DTCA in encouraging people who don’t need expensive and potentially hazardous brand-name prescription drugs to take them. Every other country by the U.S. and New Zealand has concluded that advertising prescription drugs directly to the public just doesn’t make sense, and thus don’t allow them. There’s no doubt that in the more than 50 other countries where Zelnorm is or was sold but without advertising, the number of people who took it, and who had heart problems as a result, was much lower.
Subscribe to RSS feed