Don't Buy The Hype: Big Pharma Targets Women For Drugs They Don't Need

By Judy Norsigian, Women's Media Center

Posted on May 25, 2007, Printed on May 25, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/52230/

Selling anxiety sells medicine. Drug companies know this and profit by
it. But are women benefiting as much as the industry's bottom line?

The pharmaceutical industry spent much of its $4.2 billion
direct-to-consumer advertising budget in 2005 on ads targeting healthy
upper-income, middle-aged people. A common underlying message was this:
you appear to be healthy, but a deadly heart attack, hip fracture, or
other medical catastrophe could occur at any time. Therefore, you should
take a prescription drug to prevent such problems.

For example, a long-running Merck ad featured an older woman with this
message: "See how beautiful 60 can look? See how invisible osteoporosis
can be?" and recommended that women ask their doctors about bone density
screening. As a result, many women started taking Merck's drug Fosamax,
even though the benefit may not outweigh the harm.

With such direct-to-consumer ad campaigns, which highlight risk factors
and promote screening tests, drug companies move beyond promoting
certain pills for treatment of diagnosed conditions to expanding their
use in healthy people. And selling prevention through prescription drugs
certainly does fill pharmaceutical industry coffers. Healthy people,
preferably in early middle age, who can be persuaded to take a drug
daily for the rest of their lives, are clearly the industry's most
desirable customer base. But as a category, these people who are at low
risk of having the problem the drug is meant to treat may still suffer a
serious adverse reaction.

For example, Fosamax cuts the risk of hip fracture from 2 percent to 1
percent, but that small benefit may not be worth the 1.5 percent risk of
suffering an esophageal ulcer. In addition, in a small percentage of
women using Fosamax over the long term, the jawbone will start to
crumble. And some research now suggests that the type of new bone
created by Fosamax is more brittle and more prone to fracturing over
time.=20

The over-selling of postmenopausal hormones, supported by the depiction
of natural menopause as a hormone deficiency disease, was the forerunner
to this type of sales pitch, which now permeates the media. Aging,
social anxiety disorder, heartburn, restless leg syndrome, and
overactive bladder are all examples of symptoms or normal physiological
events that are now presented to consumers as being in need of long-term
drug treatment.=20

Prescription drugs used to be advertised mainly in medical journals
aimed at health care providers. But since 1997, when the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) loosened the restrictions on direct-to-consumer
advertising, pharmaceutical companies have taken their messages directly
to the people. They claim these ads are good for consumers because they
educate and encourage individuals to be more involved in their medical
choices. But whatever the industry's philanthropic motives, the more
direct interest is the bottom line.

As Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of
Medicine, once put it, "They are no more in the business of educating
the public than a beer company is in the business of educating people
about alcoholism."

Because of direct-to-consumer advertising, more people request
prescription drugs from their doctors, and most doctors comply. Most lay
people -- and even many physicians -- are not aware that drug ads are
not checked by the FDA for accuracy beforehand, and are pulled only
after complaints are made and verified. This usually takes about six
months, and the drug company is given a grace period of several
additional months, by which time most ads would have been changed
anyway. A company is rarely required to run a corrective ad, and there
is no other penalty for misleading the public. Thus, while the FDA sends
hundreds of letters each year requiring drug companies to retract their
ads, most people don't hear about them.=20

Women need to recognize misleading pharmaceutical marketing practices
and base drug treatment decisions on scientifically accurate evidence.
Be most skeptical of heavily advertised drugs and those that come with
coupons. They are the newest, most expensive drugs with the shortest
track records of safety.

The FDA does not require new drugs to be proven better than competing,
often cheaper, drugs already on the market. Though many drugs for
chronic conditions like arthritis are taken every day for years,
pre-approval trials typically last no more than a few months and
long-term safety studies are almost never done. Life-threatening effects
may come to light only after the drug is approved and used widely.

To reduce unnecessary risk, women should seek independent sources of
evidence about medicines, particularly new ones. The FDA's web site
offers extensive information about medicines, herbal supplements, and
vitamins, including safety alerts about the latest recalls and warnings
for specific drugs.

The international nonprofit group Healthy Skepticism counters misleading
drug promotion and maintains a regular "AdWatch" section on its website.
Consumers should be cautious when looking for information on other
websites. Many are substantially sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
Being skeptical about drug ads and promotions is smart: it can protect
both our health and our wallets.=20

Judy Norsigian is the executive director of Our Bodies Ourselves, a
nonprofit women's health advocacy organization that also maintains a
daily health blog. A co-author of every edition of the book Our Bodies,
Ourselves, she is also part of the editorial team that has produced Our
Bodies, Ourselves: Menopause (2006) and Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy
and Birth (forthcoming, 2008).=20

(c) 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/52230/=20