Article: Can You Trust TV Ads for Cancer Drugs?

The take of one article, there are a good many out there, on this question.

But first,

"Why You See Such Weird Drug Commercials on TV All the Time"
https://www.thrillist.com/health/nation/why-are-prescription-drug-advertisementss-legal-in-america

SUMMARY:

Pharma TV ads pressure us to ask our doctors for drugs for all kinds of ailments, using ads with happy people in all kinds of odd settings. Doctors should be telling patients what to take, not patients telling doctors what they want. The FDA was created to regulate out-of-control drug companies using questionable sales tactics. Direct-to-consumer drug marketing, a multi-billion dollar business, was first allowed in the U.S. in 1985. Further relaxing of TV ad rules in 1997. The AMA has urged banning of such ads.

QUOTES FROM ARTICLE:

" ... it's worth asking how we became a nation that can from one side of the mouth declare a war on drugs, and from the other spew ad copy telling people to take drugs."

" ... this (early 20th century) was the era of patent medicines, a time when charlatans hawked cure-all snake oil tonics. One drug, for example, was marketed as a post-surgical antiseptic, then a floor cleaner, then a cure for gonorrhea, before it finally succeeded as a breath freshener -- today you can still buy Listerine in pretty much any pharmacy when you need to amp up your oral hygiene. Don't you miss the days when your floor cleaner could turn into a mouthwash?"

" ... the average patent medicine was a thinly veiled intoxicant, garnished by herbs with spotty medical benefits. Case in point: Lydia E. Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, which was meant to treat menstrual cramps, and contained ... about 25% alcohol."

"Despite its lofty ambitions, the FDA was relatively toothless until 1962, when Congress endowed the FDA with some real power to ensure that drug companies didn't make false claims."

" ... a growing proliferation of ads is driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives."

" ... the drug industry is still one of the most profitable in the world. It would likely do just fine without the ads."

And

"Can You Trust TV Ads for Cancer Drugs?"
https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/can-you-trust-tv-ads-for-cancer-drugs

SUMMARY:

A reference to the "This Is Your Brain on Drugs" commercial. TV drug ads are legal only in the U.S and New Zealand, and are controversial. Doctors have the training, so it's ridiculous for patients to tell them what drugs they want to take. Analysis of a TV cancer drug TV commercial, showing how it can be legal but at the same time also deceptive. TV viewer can't know if his specific cancer can respond to the particular drug being hyped on TV.

QUOTES:

" ... a spokeswoman for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical manufacturers trade association, said that advertisements help patients make better decisions. Drug makers are ‘designing their advertising to provide scientifically accurate information to help patients better understand their health care and treatment options." Article questions this.

"Patients should not be expected to make therapeutic decisions based on short TV ads for cancer drugs. After all, doctors need years to master the best treatments for complicated conditions. How can patients determine if a medication they see advertised for 60 to 90 seconds is right for them?"

Just a couple of examples of articles looking into how TV drug ads can be questioned, as to their purpose and value.

There are many aspects of this and approaches to this discussion. This thread looks at just a few of them.

I don't watch much TV, but I do listen to FM radio, and it's just as bad there. Most of them are ads that tell you that you might have some rare condition, and 'see your doctor if you have these symptoms'.

When they are pushing a medication for a condition that affects less than 1% of the potential listeners, for a condition that many PCP's may not even be able to recognize, it's not just about a drug. It's about telling people to subject themselves to a whole series of diagnostic processes to rule out this odd condition, and to keep insisting, to the specialists, that you're sure this is what is happening.

It's not even borderline unethical.

Trust? How foolish to use that word regarding advertisements.

I am mixed on this. If the ads promote better awareness and prompt appropriate visits to a doctor for a proper assessment, then there is a positive. If the ad encourages further investigation and the consumer sees it isn’t for them, that is also good. I think the occurrence of people badgering their doc for a medication that isn’t appropriate are clearly overblown. We live in a free speech capitalist society. To me, having the ads and having the choice to investigate or tune out is far superior to not having the information and choice, which is what many countries impose.

Several years ago a client of mine suffered from severe psoriatic arthritis and he was losing the use of his fingers and hands. He saw an ad for Enbrel and approached his long term specialist who said he didn’t prescribe it as he didn’t know enough about it. This prompted my client to see another doc that said it is a wonder drug for his patients and prescribed it. My client had instant relief and regained nearly full use of his fingers. Just think if he hadn’t seen the ad.

A lot of this stuff is the one of the newer “big deals” in medicine. Targeted Immunosuppressant.

I was on one for 2 years for a gut condition. (Cohns/ulcerative colitis). While rare, it’s no joke. There’s no cure, only lifelong treatment to keep it in “remission”.

Immunosuppressants use the body’s own immune system to target a disease. Before these drugs were approved, there might have been only 1 or 2 drugs available to fight many of these diseases. Once the immune system figured out a way around that drug, the disease would come back with no way of fighting it left in medicine cabinet.

These drugs are extremely expensive. However, if you happen to be one of the outliers who has ulcerative colitis (or a similar incurable disease that few no anything about) these drugs can make the difference between having to have a colostomy bag due to having your bowel removed and living a “disease free” life with no body parts missing and or not working correctly.

I agree the list of side effects can be similar (the drugs work in similar ways)…for the few who need them, they can be life altering to the good.

And as Forrest Gump used to say, “That’s all I have to say about that”.

I like the side affects that the tv commercials point out.... Most give the impression that the drugs "Can Be" more dangerous than the illness.... And in particular the part about how the drugs can kill you...

The “Do not take if allergic to this drug” really cracks me up.... BUT - they have to do that to cover their butts. Theneed the ability to say -> "WE TOLD YOU SO."