Does direct-to-consumer advertising of antidepressants lead to a net social benefit?

Medicines Information and the Regulation of the Promotion of Pharmaceuticals

Many factors contribute to the inappropriate use of medicines, including not only a lack of information but also inaccurate and misleading promotional information. This review examines how the promotion of pharmaceuticals directly affects the prescribing and use of medicines. We define promotion broadly as all actions taken directly by pharmaceutical companies with the aim of enhancing product sales. We look in greater detail at promotion techniques aimed at prescribers, such as sales representatives, pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals and use of key opinion leaders, along with the quality of information provided and the effects thereof. We also discuss promotion to the public, through direct-to-consumer advertising, and its effects. Finally, we consider initiatives to regulate promotion that come from industry, government and nongovernmental organizations.

Advertising of prescription-only medicines to the public: does evidence of benefit counterbalance harm?

Since the global withdrawal of rofecoxib (Vioxx) in 2004, concerns about public health effects of direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) have grown. A systematic review of the research evidence on behavioral, health, and cost effects, published in 2005, found four studies meeting inclusion criteria, which showed that DTCA increases prescribing volume and patient demand, and shifts prescribing. From 2005 to 2010, nine studies met similar criteria. These largely confirm previous results. Additional effects include a shift to less appropriate prescribing, differential effects by patient price sensitivity and drug type, switches to less cost-effective treatment, and sustained sales despite a price increase. Claimed effects on adherence do not stand up to scrutiny and are based mainly on negative trials. There is no evidence of improved treatment quality or early provision of needed care. If policy is to be informed by evidence, the strength of research methods and ability to assess causality need to be considered.

The increasing frequency of mania and bipolar disorder: causes and potential negative impacts

The frequency of mania has not changed during the last century even with the development of new diagnostic criteria sets. More specifically, from the mid-1970s to 2000, the rate of mania (variably labeled major affective disorder-bipolar disorder and bipolar I disorder) was consistently identified in US and international studies as ranging from 0.4% to 1.6%. By the late 1990s to the 2000s, the prevalence reported by some researchers for bipolar disorders (I and II and others) was in the 5% to 7% and higher ranges. The purpose of this paper was to review explanations for this change and the potentially negative impacts on the field.