BMJ: Only 6% of drug advertising material is supported by evidence

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:57:01 -0500

[sSRI-Research] BMJ: Only 6% of drug advertising material is

supported by evidence

 

 

 

 

New Study finds only 6% of drug

advertising material is supported by evidence

 

BMJ 2004;328:485 (28 February)

Heidelberg Annette Tuffs

 

 

http://garynull.com/Article.aspx?Article==/Library.aspx & Head==Library

 

This document was provided by:

Health Education AIDS Liaison, Toronto

www.healtoronto.com

tel/fax:(416) 406-HEAL

 

A new study of the advertising material and marketing brochures

sent out by drug companies to GPs in Germany has shown that about 94%

of the information in them has no basis in scientific evidence.

 

The study, carried out by the Institute for Evidence-Based

Medicine, a private independent research institute in Cologne,

evaluated 175 brochures containing information on 520 drugs, which

were either sent by post or handed out to 43 GPs since last June. The

study was published in this month’s issue of the drugs bulletin

Arznei Telegramm (2004;35:21-3; www.di-em.de/data/at_2004_35_21.pdf ).

 

About 15% of the brochures did not contain any citations, while

the citations listed in another 22% could not be found. In the

remaining 63% the information was mostly correctly connected with the

relevant research articles but did not reflect their results. Only 6%

of the brochures contained statements that were scientifically

supported by identifiable literature.

 

The evaluation was done by two specially trained and

independently acting reviewers. In cases of doubt a third reviewer was

involved.

 

" This is the first study in Germany evaluating the quality of

drug advertising material, " says Thomas Kaiser, a scientist at the

institute who published the study together with Peter Sawicki and

other colleagues.

 

He points out that the advertising material presents distorted

images of the drugs’ profiles. The article lists several examples of

misrepresentation: medical guidelines from scientific societies are

misquoted or changed, the side effects of drugs are minimised, groups

of patient are wrongly defined, study results are suppressed,

treatment effects are exaggerated, risks are manipulated, and effects

of drugs were drawn from animal studies.

 

The authors warn that such a high amount of misinformation puts

patients’ health at risk. Studies from other countries have shown

that doctors tend to base their decisions on the information and

advertising material sent out by drug companies. Therefore, the

authors conclude, an independent institution should be established to

monitor the content of such material.

 

The German drug industry has decided to tighten the rules in its

self regulatory code on relations between the industry and the medical

profession with regard to cooperation in clinical studies and

attendance at conferences that are funded by drug companies.

 

The German Association of Research Based Pharmaceutical

Companies in Berlin announced that its members have set up an

independent tribunal in Berlin. Members of the tribunal will be chosen

by drug companies and doctors’ and patients’ groups but will not

be elected representatives of those bodies. Like a court, the tribunal

will be able to punish companies that break the rules, imposing fines

of up to €50 000 (£34 000; $63 000) or, in the case of a second

offence, up to €250 000. Anyone will be allowed to notify the

tribunal of possible offences.

 

The initiative was the industry’s reaction to the German

government’s threat to install an executive against corruption.

Doctors’ associations have also tightened their rules on corruption.

 

More information about the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine

can be found on its website:

www.di-em.de/z_index.htm