Pfizer Chantix Ads In South Korea Are Criticized
24 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // July 1st, 2008 // 7:17 am
The Korean Medical Association, the nation’s largest group of doctors, is under fire for allegedly receiving sponsorship from the drugmaker for its no-smoking campaign, The Korea Times reports. The association is blamed for trying to take a free ride without mentioning the sponsor, while Pfizer is accused of trying to gain publicity for Champix, which may not be advertised.
According to Yonhap News, Pfizer has been financing online, television and print commercials for the KMA’s “Quit Smoking” campaign. However, there is no sign of its name in the ads. (Chantix, by the way, is marketed as Champix outside the US).
In the aired ads, foreign males hold a lollipop, sausage and celery stick instead of a cigarette, saying “I finally made it with my doctor. He has all the bits” with the telephone number of KMA’s free hotline running underneath. In the video or print ads, there was no mention of the campaign being sponsored by anybody else, the paper writes.
Both Pfizer and KMA reluctantly admitted to the deal they made. A KMA spokesman says “the key point about the campaign was to show that overcoming nicotine requires professional help. Pfizer was positive about the message and came to sponsor it. However, it was a public campaign, so we thought not mentioning a commercial organization’s name would be appropriate.”
Just the same, the ads drew criticism over suspicions that Pfizer was trying to use the sponsorship as leverage to influence doctors, particularly in the wake of publicity over side effects, including suicidal behavior and thoughts.
“Since smoking patches, gum, candy or even substitute cigarettes can be bought without prescription anywhere, the campaign urging smokers to consult doctors to effectively quit smoking actually means to buy Champix through doctors,” an official from another drugmaker, who declined to be named, told the news agency.
war horse
Most people who quit smoking for good do it cold turkey. Nicotine replacement and other pharmaceuticals are fine for those who need them–but claiming somebody needs professional help to quit is right up there with the Chanitx=methdone message being promoted by those who claim you need life-long treatment to stay off cigarettes.
Chronic diseases are pharma’s life’s blood.
Atlex
War Horse,
It’s amazing how many things you can get wrong in a single paragraph (plus a sentence). First, support programs delivered through medical professionals have the highest quit rates. Second, except for a few outlier physicians, Chantix is not used chronically.
Atlex
Atlex
Ed,
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Smoking is the number 1 killer (I think this is the case) in the developed world. The lead Korean physician association wants to take it on as an issue. It goes to a potential sponsor which also has an interest in smoking cessation and asks for money for public health commercials. The commercials don’t mention any products, nor do the links (phone numbers, web sites, etc.) mentioned in the ad lead to anything directly associated with Champix. There is nothing in the article that suggests that this is in any way illegal. Based on the last sentence of your report, this sounds like a competitor trying to create controversy for commercial gain.
Atlex
war horse
Atlex–Please see the following before you start telling others about their ignorance.
Relying upon survey data, in 1992 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that “approximately 90% of successful quitters have used a self-help quitting strategy, most by quitting abruptly.” Looking back at survey data, in 2000 the Surgeon General reported that, “historically, the great majority of smokers (more than 90 percent) who successfully quit smoking did so ‘on their own.’” In 2006 an Australian study following smoking patients of family practice physicians found that cold turkey quitters accounted for 1,942 of 2,207 former smokers, a whopping 88% of all success stories.
Even more disturbing, the Australian study, published in the May 2006 edition of Addictive Behaviors, found that the success rate for cold turkey quitters was twice as high as the rates for those using the nicotine patch, nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler or Zyban (bupropion).
Ed Silverman
Hi Atlex,
You’re correct. The last sentence is attributed to another drugmaker, which makes it difficult to know how much is more than anonymous carping. As to illegality, that word wasn’t mentioned.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the ad(s) to display here. And the original report, as you can see, doesn’t quote anyone else.
From what I gather, the issue is that Pfizer sponsored the ads, and the medical association is being chastised for not paying for the campaign itself.
I agree this is thorny - the overall message is to help people quit smoking, and that’s laudatory. On the other hand, is the company indirectly promoting its product, and therefore gaining a benefit, by sponsoring the ads?
I suppose one way to look at this is to ask if there is/was another way to go about this in order to avoid the appearance of advertising the product.
ed
Atlex
War Horse,
You can selectively find anything you want; however just in the last few months, a consortium of eight Federal Government and nonprofit organizations: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Cancer Institute (NCI); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); American Legacy Foundation; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF); and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention (UW-CTRI) published “Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat2.section.28165
Among the 10 major recommendations that stemmed from a review of 8,700 articles was the following: “7. Counseling and medication are effective when used by themselves for treating tobacco dependence. The combination of counseling and medication, however, is more effective than either alone. Thus, clinicians should encourage all individuals making a quit attempt to use both counseling and medication.”
Atlex
Nathan
war horse,
That’s interesting because it directly contridicts information from the National Cancer Institute:
“A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials shows that 6- to 12-month cessation rates are significantly improved with use of nicotine replacement therapy products compared with placebo or no intervention (summary odds ratio [OR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66–1.88).[10] The benefits of nicotine replacement therapy product use have been consistently observed regardless of whether the product used was the patch, gum, nasal spray, inhaler, or lozenge.[10]”
In fact, they give this DIRECT guidance to doctors:
“One or more of the three treatment elements identified as being particularly effective should be included in smoking-cessation treatment:
1) Social support from clinicians in the form of encouragement, assistance.
2) Skills training/problem solving (cessation/abstinence techniques).
3) Pharmacotherapy, such as nicotine-replacement, e.g., patches, gum.”
Here’s the web link: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/prevention/control-of-tobacco-use/HealthProfessional/page3
Atlex
Ed,
Here in the US, when the ALA or the ACS run anti-smoking ads they do not mention sponsorships despite the fact that major drug companies are among the largest donors. Both organizations list sponsors and donors on their websites, but I don’t think they mention them in advertisements. I understand that there is a difference in that Pfizer may have been the sole sponsor of the ads in Korea. Personally, I don’t think much of this one way or the other, but I’m sure that at some point in the near future some reporter will shame these two organizations and they will end up listing every sponsor in a crawl across the bottom of every ad.
Atlex
Nathan
Ed,
I have a question: When you say that the Korean Medical Association is “being chastised” or “under fire” and that Pfizer is drawing criticism, who exactly is DOING the “chastising” and criticizing?
Is it the public? The media? Other professional associations?
I just sometimes get the impression that the criticizing is actually being done by the media itself in order to create a controversy where there was previously not a controversy. Please correct me if I’m wrong in this case.
Jack2
Pfizer in the midst of another nontroversy
Ed Silverman
Hi Nathan,
As Atlex and I have already discussed, the only quote in the story from the South Korean news agency is, unfortunately, from an anonymous drugmaker. However, the translation comes from the Korean Times, which may have edited something out. I have no way of knowing.
But I can’t answer your bottom-line question - I have no idea if someone at the Yonhap News agency has a grudge against the pharmaceutical industry. One can make assumptions both ways, I suppose.
I posted the item because it raised the issue of sponsorship of such campaigns, however imperfectly, not to bash anyone. But if you want to turn this into a media-bashing session, feel free.
ed
Quibbler
Nathan,
If you have a question about the sources for the article, why don’t you contact the author directly instead of passive-aggressively snarking at Ed who simply mentioned that the article exists.
The articles author is clearly identified and an email address is supplied:
Bae Ji-sook
bjs@koreatimes.co.kr
pharma PR hack
i think the reason that the medical association is being chastised is that South Korea, like the rest of the world but us and one other countryis a country with NO DTC so Pfizer could not run those ads that way by themselves. If the sponsorship was mentioned in the ads, odds are good it would not have made it to the airwaves in that format and would have undergone an additional hurdle of scrutiny.
war horse
Nathan–Thanks for the info. The key seems to be the degree of determination by the smoker. And presumably, somebody who quits cold turkey has a lot of determination. See the results of a recent UK study various success rates in English smoking services:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118739523/abstract
One user in seven (14.6%) reported prolonged abstinence and was CO-validated as a successful quitter at 52 weeks. This rose to 17.7% when self-report cases were included. Relapse rates between 4 and 52 weeks were almost identical between the two study areas—75%. Relapse was most likely to occur in the first 6 months following treatment. Users who self-reported quitting at 4 weeks were less likely (13.7%) than those with biochemical verification of smoking status at 4 weeks (25.2%) to be CO-validated quitters at 52 weeks (P = 0.004). Older users (OR 1.023; CI 1.014–1.032), people who smoke mainly for pleasure rather than to cope (OR 1.38; CI 1.02–1.87), and those who were extremely determined (OR 1.58; CI 1.21–2.05) were more likely to be quitters at 52-week follow-up, whereas those with lower socio-economic status (OR 0.86; CI 0.78–0.96), who smoked their first cigarette of the day within 5 minutes of waking (OR 0.73; CI 0.55–0.96) or had another smoker in their household (OR 0.65; CI 0.49–0.86) were less likely. In contrast, users lost to follow-up tended to be younger and experienced different referral pathways than CO-validated quitters. Gender was not statistically significantly associated with cessation at 52 weeks and nor were any of the key characteristics of intervention, such as group or one-to-one counselling.
Nathan
Quibler and Ed,
There are NO direct statements of blame or accusation in this article. It’s only fair to ask where all this controversy is coming from. My intention was not to turn this into “another media bashing session”. I’m just asking the news media to do it’s job. It’s not my job to check sources of articles. That’s something that the S. Korean reporter or Ed should have done. The story says numerous passive things, but nothing direct.
“The association is blamed”
“group of doctors, is under fire”
“Pfizer is accused”
“the ads drew criticism”
Ed didn’t write the story, but he did perpetuate it and gave it credence. From what I can tell, there is no story here. I’d be glad to stand corrected if I’m wrong.
Ed Silverman
Hi Nathan,
You raised a good point, but as I already indicated, and discussed with Atlex and you in my previous notes, I unfortunately have nothing more I can add.
But again, I posted the item because it raised the issue of sponsorship of such campaigns, however imperfectly. You haven’t addressed that point, by the way.
Cheers
ed
Nathan
Of course I don’t have an issue with sponsorship of health-related ads or even DTC ads. Advertising is a free-speech issue. As long as the claims made are legitimate, non-defamatory, and non-offensive, I have no problem with companies or individuals paying private money to say whatever they want on the air.
An analogy to DTC ads is advertising by the Army. The army wants recruits. They pay for ad time to get recruits. Can you sign up for the army and automatically get in? No way! You have to go through a series of tests and qualifications first. Same with prescription drugs. We can’t buy prescription drugs ourselves — we go through a series of tests and qualifications done by a doctor.
By the way, when the Army advertises, they are not required to give disclosures of the risk involved! They only discuss the benefits. Why doesn’t anyone complain?
Justice in MI
I’m a bit unclear what the issue is. Pfizer runs the “It’s-My-Time-to-Quit” promos all the time on U.S. TV. You have to look very hard to notice that these are ads for Chantix/Pfizer.
The key difference I see here is that Pfizer got the KMA to “front” for them, related to the fact that DTC is not permitted in S. Korea, as pharma hack notes. So the KMA becomes a kind of institutional KOL.
Is that the gist of it?
pharma PR hack
I think it is more than they become an institutional KOL; The conflict is by getting them to do what Pharma can’t- Pfizer found a way around the ban on television advertising and while it may be a seek treatment ad- if you are the only one who is not OTC then it is essentially an ad just for you!
Pharma has been working hard to work around the ban in South Koreal which will is a strong emerging market for them. In the last few years, several “patient associations” have sprung up to spread the word.
John Q
Nathan, You just don’t get it do you, huh? Pfizer is running one hard campaign and still are losing the battle. Yes, if Pfizer sponsors an ad, then yes it should state that fact some where on that ad.
Look at some of the “facts” Pfizer’s drs for hire have promoted.
Dr Foulds promotes smokeless tobacco.
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/48FD8C7A-A209-4C21-BE13-7FEE597E217F/0/HarmReduction.pdf
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0955395905000496
Dr Steinburg promotes 1 year use of Chantix
http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/tnc/winter081-2.pdf
Dr Foulds promotes 1 year use of Chantix
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2007/04/chantix-how-does-this-new-quit-smoking.html
Now Dr Foulds cries fowl and states he never said to take Chantix for 1 year.
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/
Funny….
Atlex
John Q,
Do you read your own references? Not one of them supports the argument you make in your posting.
Atlex
ExSmoker
War Horse - Good luck to those trying to quit cold turkey (and I admit that I have tremendous admiration for them). I certainly could not do it and will ever be grateful for the help I received in finally kicking the habit. Things have changed a bit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01182007.html
vince
I hope all these Koreans stop smoking. Smoking here remains extremely popular and the ban on smoking indoors is flaunted. Children are routinely exposed to second hand smoke. Cigarette butts appear to be the number one form of trash on the streets and are being washed into storm drains and polluting waterways.
You folks may be wasting your time arguing about how people successfully quit smoking because the data you are using is for Westerners. We need data for Asians, specifically, Koreans. Culture likely plays a strong role in the decision to smoke or quit.
The public smokers in Korea are men. And they often start in highschool or college. There are lots of women smokers but they rarely, if ever, smoke in public so it’s hard to know how popular it is from casual observation. I suspect it is not so popular for women to smoke.
Now the million dollar question, “Will Korean men respond to a request to quit from their doctor better than from their family?”
John Q
vince, I do believe the “Pfizer dollar question” here is…
How long will congress go on with this Chantix debacle before someone is actually charged?