Most drugs advertised on television don't work better than existing alternatives, a new analysis shows. And manufacturers spend more on advertising for those less beneficial drugs than for ones that work better.

"One explanation might be that drugs with substantial therapeutic value are likely to be recognized and prescribed without advertising, so manufacturers have greater incentive to promote drugs of lesser value," wrote the authors of the study, published last week in JAMA Open Network .

More than 70% of the advertised drugs studied had a low benefit compared to alternatives, while 29% had a high benefit. Among those listed as having a high benefit were a psoriatic arthritis drug (adalimumab), a heart failure drug (sacubitril/valsartan), and a lung cancer drug (pembrolizumab).

The analysis examined independent therapeutic value ratings for 73 of the most advertised drugs from 2015 to 2021. The researchers defined therapeutic value as "whether they represent advances over existing treatments."

Spending on commercials for the drugs studied topped $22 billion over the 6-year period. The researchers found that median spending during that period for a low-benefit drug was $338 million, which was nearly $73 million more than for drugs categorized as having a high benefit over existing options.

"The American Medical Association and public health advocates have called for restrictions on direct-to-consumer drug advertising, warning that it inflates demand for newer, more expensive drugs at the expense of less costly alternatives," the authors wrote. "Policy makers and regulators could consider limiting direct-to-consumer advertising to drugs with high therapeutic or public health value or requiring standardized disclosure of comparative effectiveness and safety data, but policy changes would likely require industry cooperation or face constitutional challenge."

Source
JAMA Open Network: "Therapeutic Value of Drugs Frequently Marketed Using Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising, 2015 to 2021."



Cite this: Drugs Advertised on TV Aren't Better Than Existing Options: Study - Medscape - Jan 18, 2023.


LINKK; https://www.medscape.com/viewa...5325SY&impID=5112703

Patents expire and a new cash cow is needed.

As my wife can tell you from my incessant grousing about this when these commercials come on TV, this is a pet peeve of mine.

Actually, I think that the direct marketing of pharmaceutical drugs to consumers is so egregious, my objections to this practice are far more than peeves.

Up until quite recently, these snake oil salesman didn't even feel an obligation to tell us during the commercial just what the drug they are hawking is supposed to do, and they still hide this most basic of consumer information in the text on the screen or in the script. Shady sons o' bitches.

If I could, I'd have the board members of these slimy pharmaceutical companies pilloried and placed in the public square, and offer rotten fruits and vegetables to be thrown at them. Let 'em sit like that for about 36 hours and it'll be a whole new world for them once they are released.

Whenever I see something advertised over and over (at great expense) I am very Leary. If it's so friggen great, why the need to spend big bucks to sell it? Sure I get the three P's of marketing, but that principle dictates all three are there and if not you need to invest more in the other two. I'm a cynic who's not been taken over the years.

I too am sick (maybe there's a pill I can take) of the never-ending ads for what ails ya. For shits and grins, I check the prices of the pill being advertised and of course I was shocked to see they are exorbitant. Despite the blurb "if you cant afford XXXX, Big Pharma may be able to help".

quote:

Originally posted by NavyGuy:
Whenever I see something advertised over and over (at great expense) I am very Leary. If it's so friggen great, why the need to spend big bucks to sell it?

Bingo!

I kind of figure the harder someone's trying to sell it, the worse it is.

quote:

Up until quite recently, these snake oil salesman didn't even feel an obligation to tell us during the commercial just what the drug they are hawking is supposed to do, and they still hide this most basic of consumer information in the text on the screen or in the script. Shady sons o' bitches.

Oh, I forgot to add all the side effects of the drug that they mention in passing. Which often seems worse than your affliction!

Over the years, the drug companies' bribery of doctors was gradually reined in. My medical group stopped letting the "drug reps" come to the doctors' offices to pressure/tempt/bribe them to prescribe their drugs--which were usually "me-too" drugs in the same class as an older drug that had recently gone off patent.

Doctors in fee-for-service practices IMO have continued to be bombarded with marketing for newer drugs with little known additional benefit. I remember the Nexium adds--no benefit over previous proton pump inhibitors. And the whole class, it turns out, need to be limited in their use due to serious adverse effects for all of them.

Now, there are lots of questions in my mind about off-shored production of drugs, especially but not exclusively generic ones, made in China or India. Little regulation by the FDA; huge amounts of corruption. Who tests these drugs for bioavailability?

Iirc … both the absence of the benefits, and the statement of negative side effects in advertising are all regulated by the goobers.

quote:

Most drugs advertised on television don't work better than existing alternatives, a new analysis shows.

Not in the least surprised. And this also goes for those not advertised on TV but are newer than many old standbys. Perfect example is the treatment of Strep throat. The tried and true treatment is still your lowly penicillin (PCN), discovered almost 100 years ago. Yet, many patients are being inappropriately prescribed the Z-Pak, despite them not having PCN allergy.

I think z pack for strep throat is for resistant strains. That being said a doctor once told me that it usually resolves on its own in about 7 days. He said by the time symptoms get a patient to go get tested it’s almost over. That’s why you feel better a day after starting antibiotics. You were getting better anyway.

Regarding FDA oversight in foreign countries, I can tell you they can’t keep up with inspections in this country, never mind overseas.

quote:

Originally posted by frayedends:
I think z pack for strep throat is for resistant strains. That being said a doctor once told me that it usually resolves on its own in about 7 days. He said by the time symptoms get a patient to go get tested it’s almost over. That’s why you feel better a day after starting antibiotics. You were getting better anyway.

Regarding FDA oversight in foreign countries, I can tell you they can’t keep up with inspections in this country, never mind overseas.

Not really. Actual PCN-resistant Streptococcus pyogenes (the bug that causes "Strep throat") has never been documented in human. But resistance to azithromycin (generic name for the antibiotic in the Z-Pak) is well documented. The Z-Pak is specifically formulated for certain respiratory bacterial infections. It contains a 5-day course of azithromycin, 500mg on day 1, then 250mg each day on days 2-5. To treat Strep throat with azithromycin, you need higher doses, 500mg each day for 5 days. This is per the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Guidelines. So, docs who prescribe Z-Pak to treat Strep throat are doing patients no favor.

Btw, being it resolved on its own or not is not a main concern. Properly treating Strep throat is important for 2 major reasons. Untreated or improperly treated, some patients subsequently develop acute rheumatic fever (causing heart damage) or post-Strep acute glomerulonephritis (causing kidney damage).

I love this forum!

^^^^
Well I’ve learned a bit today. Thanks

^^^Every tool you need is just a question and answer away. God, I hope I never get banned.

This is the only place I know of where every A ends with a Q.

Many are simply a new qsolution looking for a problem.
.

quote:

Most drugs advertised on television don't work better than existing alternatives

Drugs that work better advertise themselves...to medical professionals...via medical journal articles.

It's the other drugs that need to advertise to the folks like me who don't read and/or wouldn't understand those journal articles.

Whos is buying these drugs, at least the 70 percent that have not proved to be any better?

Reason I ask is we have really good health insurance but they are a real stickler about getting any name brand drug when less expensive alternatives, especially generics, are available though sometimes that is an option if you have tried at least a few of the approved lower cost options for a specified period of time with poor results and a doctor report verifying such we have never had to do. Maybe using co-pay cards? Without co-pay cards or such many of these name brand drugs are very expensive, even if insurance pays for the portion in accordance with the health care plan which often have yearly limits on what they will cover for prescription drugs and are not part of the out of pocket maximum. Maybe some of them aren't all that expensive, just more expensive that alternatives not advertised? I take 2 BP meds and both are generic. I used to take generic floxmax but have been getting good results with pumpkin seed oil and saw palmetto.