How Big Pharma ads con both you and your doctor

By Dr. Allan Spreen on 09/19/2011

The United States is one of two countries in the world that allows Big Pharma to market directly to consumers. Yes you read that right -- one of two counties in the entire world.

So we have to live with misleading ads directed toward us. Honestly, I try to tune them out. But they're everywhere. And the TV ads are the worst.

Take for example, last year's TV ads for Latisse. The ads feature Brooke Shields telling us -- with her dazzling smile -- about how she used Latisse to grow longer and thicker eyelashes.

But the ads didn't mention the nasty (and hairy!) side effects. In fact, if you use Latisse, you don't just grow new eyelashes. You may even start growing hair on any place the medicine repeatedly touches. So be careful not to let it touch your chin or upper lip, ladies! (You can also experience changes in your eye color...and even bacterial infections that can lead to blindness.

FDA loosens cuffs on Big Pharma

There's one reason why these kinds of TV ads have gotten out of hand. One reason alone.

In 1997, the FDA loosened the rules for direct-to-consumer ads. Prior to 1997, TV drug ads had to list detailed information about every possible side effect. After 1997, not so much. They just have to give a general idea of the more serious side effects. As a result, Big Pharma's TV budgets have soared.

In fact, in 1997, Big Pharma collectively spent $844 million on TV ads. But 12 years later, Big Pharma spent more than 10 times that on just 10 of their favorite drugs. The cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor has the biggest TV ad budget.

The FDA has a hard enough time policing TV ads to consumers. But the agency really falls short when it comes to print ads. They just don't have enough eyes to keep track of all the bad ads.FDA tries to mop up its own problems

To deal with this growing problem, last year the FDA created the "Bad Ad" program. The agency wants you and your doctor report misleading drug ads. (Heck, I'd much rather see the FDA yank all the drug marketing...but that's just too much to expect, apparently.)

Last year, doctors and consumers really chipped in. They reported 328 "potentially untruthful or misleading" ads to the FDA. This is more than three times the number of reports they typically get. Plus, the FDA wants to expand the program to create more "FDA informants."

And that's welcome news...

Because some of the worst misleading ads appear in medical journals!

In fact, researchers recently examined drug ads placed during November of 2008 in nine major medical journals. During this one-month period, very few of the ads met the entire FDA criterion for drug ads. In fact, just 18 percent of the ads fully complied with FDA guidelines.

Researchers also found that MOST of the ads lacked safe prescribing information. In fact, 58 percent of the ads did not quantify the serious risks. Plus, 48 percent of them lacked verifiable references (another big no-no). And lastly, 29 percent of the ads failed to present evidence that the drug actually does what it's supposed to do.

And here's what's even scarier...

Most of the misleading ads were for hematology or oncology drugs. These are the ads you want to be MOST accurate and up front about risks and effectiveness. But they're actually the worst offenders!

Plus...

These misleading ads appeared in prestigious medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine!

Just think about it...

In many cases, these ads are the only thing some doctors read before prescribing a drug to their patient. (Of course, they probably get the inside scoop from the young and attractive drug rep who visits their office with donuts each week. Yeah. That's a real credible source of information.)

The researchers who conducted the review of "bad ads" say the FDA needs to simplify and update its guidelines. They say drugs ads need to give clear risks and absolute benefits. The ads also need verifiable references and should clearly explain which patients should take the drug.

Gee, is that really so much to ask?