Thanks But No Thanks Is it possible that direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs might be a little misleading at times? I hope the full impact of my sarcasm is coming through there. A new study from Dartmouth Medical School concluded that consumers would better understand the benefits and adverse side effects of a drug if commercials included a "prescription drug benefits box," much like the nutrition panel required for all food products. As imagined by the Dartmouth team, the box would contain detailed information from clinical studies. One of the authors of the study called for the FDA to "mandate" a requirement for the box in all pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer advertising. I know that information is power and all that. But this is a terrible idea. For three reasons: 1) This requirement would create an extra step and an extra expense for drug manufacturers. And guess who would pay for it? You, me, and everyone except the drug companies. 2) Most of the clinical studies of prescription drugs are underwritten by drug manufacturers as part of the FDA approval process. So studies with bad outcomes rarely see the light of day. If the information about studies on a "benefits box" came from completely unbiased sources, that might be useful. But in virtually all cases, these sources are not unbiased. 3) I'll do my own research. And I'll end up with more revealing information than whatever might fit in a little box on a TV screen in a 30-second commercial. I don't doubt that the Dartmouth team's heart is in the right place. But I seriously doubt that this plan would do anything more than add to an already overstuffed and out-of-control bureaucracy. To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute Source:
"Direct to Consumer Ads Can Be Misleading, Say Researchers" Science Blog, 4/30/04, scienceblog.com
| 
