Many Ads For Psych Meds Are Unsubstantiated
A new study finds that the accuracy of ads for antidepressants and antipsychotics often make claims that can’t be verified and attempts to obtain data cited in the ads from the drugmakers were rarely successful. The study examined the accuracy of 69 ads that appeared in four widely read medical journals - Archives of General Psychiatry, the American Journal of Psychiatry, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association - in 2005.
Half of the claims made in ads provided no attainable source that could be used to check the veracity of the claim, according to the study, which was published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. When sources were verified, they supported the cited claims only 65 percent of the time. And claims regarding efficacy were only supported by obtained cited sources 53 percent of the time. There were various reasons why claims were not supported by their sources, the authors write. In some instances, the claim was clearly contradicted by the cited source, whereas in others, the cited source did not provide data that was directly relevant to the claim.
Of requests mailed to nine drugmakers regarding claims made in 29 ads, repiles were received from just three, one of which provided a summary of results from various studies, one of which provided three journal article reprints, and one of which wrote back saying it was against company policy to provide such data. Which one denied the request? Wyeth. (Please click on ‘read more’ below to view the reply). Ironically, the Effexor XR ad implores docs to “See The Data,” but apparently that only refers to the data Wyeth wants them to see.
“When claims are made that aren’t supported, the impression created is overly optimistic,” says lead author Glen Spielmans, an assistant psychology professor at Metropolitan State University. “So it’s possible that the claims are true, but because data wasn’t reported and isn’t easily obtained or verified, we don’t really know.”
What to do?
He favors increased regulation of advertising. And in an accompanying editorial, Steve Sharfstein, a psychiatry professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and ceo of Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Health System, says both the FDA and medical journals need to do more.
“Physicians should be quite skeptical when it comes to reading these advertisements that are pervasive in the psychiatric and medical journals today,” he writes. “The FDA needs to step up to the plate but the journals themselves should develop standards and criteria for some of the advertising and reject ads that are clearly misleading. The doctor-patient relationship should not be a marketdriven phenomenon. If patients are to trust their physicians, they need to know that their interests are paramount and that the physicians’ knowledge base is up-to-date and accurate.”
truthman30
Wyeths Effexor ..
“Proven to resolve emotional and physical symptoms”
Now there’s pseudoscience if i ever did see it…
No drug can resolve an emotional symptom or an emotional cause of mental distress…
Quite Simply ..
It’s Utter B**lox
Justice in Michigan
Botox?
Bruce Grant
Hey, Ed…
FWIW, when I click on the link to the Wyeth response, I get asked for a username and password on the starledger.com server.
truthman30
Botox..
No.. Bollox..
Grieving
I agree with Dr. Sharfstein that the FDA, also referred to as the “tin standard”, and the journals need to do a better job. The problem is they don’t. Even if the FDA gets more money in its budget for the upcoming year, there is no guarantee that it will go for drug safety.
But in addition to pointing out the failings of the FDA and journals, what about the thousands upon thousands of people who have been maimed or killed by psychotropic drugs. From profound hyperglycemia (my son, dead from Zyprexa), to pancreatitis - my friend’s only child, dead from Zyprexa, to all the birth defects from pregnant women taking SSRIs, to all the homicides and suicides, to heart attacks and death from off label atypical use with people with dementia, there is no end to the carnage resulting and increasing.
Just yesterday I found out that the “Mothers bill” which passed the House and will now go to the Senate HELP Committee, was sponsored by both Clinton and Obama. It is a drug pusher bill to force SSRIs onto pregnant and post partum women. A catastrophe in the making.
What would Dr Sharstein do about the deaths, all the deaths?
Dan
Are there ads that are completely accurate for any med? That would be refreshing and suggest such a drug maker acquired perhaps some honesty.
truthman30
Just yesterday I found out that the “Mothers bill” which passed the House and will now go to the Senate HELP Committee, was sponsored by both Clinton and Obama. It is a drug pusher bill to force SSRIs onto pregnant and post partum women. A catastrophe in the making.
What would Dr Sharstein do about the deaths, all the deaths?
Absolutely HORRIFIC ..
harpy
Ok, I just read the “Mothers Act” and while I’m not comfortable with section (D) on page 13, I don’t see any mechanism for forcing women to take SSRIs.
Grieving
The Mothers Bill number is S. 1375 and can be found on thomas.gov. Anyone who can read this billl and contact his or her senator to urge a vote against it may be saving a life. The makers of SSRIs, as all psychotropic drugs, are always looking for new victims. Actually the bill is for post partum women, with grants from the feds to screen them and “refer” them. It reminds me of the infamous program called “Teen Screen” - same goal.