Big pharma spends more money on advertising drugs that have lower health benefits for patients, according to a study.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University found that spending on promoting prescription drugs rose from $1.3 billion in 1996 to $6 billion in 2016. Ninety-two of 135 drugs considered, or nearly 70 percent, were deemed to have little health benefits.
The U.S. does not currently assess prescription drugs for comparative effectiveness. The researchers based their rating categories on France and Canada’s ratings of the same prescription drugs sold in the U.S., some under different brand names.
Dr. Michael DiStefano, the lead author of the study, said:
“The findings suggest that shifting promotional dollars to direct-to-consumer advertising potentially reflects a strategy to drive patient demand for drugs that clinicians would be less likely to prescribe.”
“When a consumer sees these advertisements on TV or social media, they should really question if it’s the best drug for them and have a conversation with their provider.”
The findings come amid lingering ethical questions regarding TV drug advertising and come just weeks after a Harvard study found a similar discrepancy between the amount spent on medical adverts and the benefit the medicines provide to patients.
The Johns Hopkins team started out with a list of 150 of the top-selling drugs in 2020 but narrowed it down to 135. Ninety-two of 135 drugs, 68 percent with a clinical benefit assessment were rated as having a low added benefit.
The median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising by drug companies was 13.5 percent, though depending on the drug spending ranged from 1.96 percent to 36.6 percent.
More from AWM:
Some of the biggest buyers for pharmaceutical ads were the antibody Gammagard Liquid. The company behind this drug spent 99.9 percent of its promotion budget on television ads. The second biggest spender for TV ads was Yervoy for melanoma, which funneled a whopping 97.6 percent of its advertising money into TV ads. The multiple sclerosis treatment Ocrevus spent 97.4 percent on marketing to consumers through television.
In this John Hopkins University study, the “low-added benefit” status means that the drug in question did little to nothing to help the patient’s overall health or longevity.
Other big spenders on consumer marketing were the drugs Ibrance for breast cancer, with 95.8 percent dedicated to advertising; Opdivo for various cancers, with 92.2 percent spent on advertising; Odefsey to treat HIV at 91.7 percent; Entyvio with 87.4 percent; Keytruda to treat HIV at 86.5 percent; followed by Neulasta, the post-chemotherapy drug, with 85.5 percent, according to the Daily Mail.
Although the medications are not really that effective, their direct-to-consumer marketing is very effective.
The study authors wrote: “Allocating a greater share of promotional spending to consumer advertising (vs. promotions that target clinicians) may therefore reflect a strategy to drive patient demand for drugs that clinicians might be less likely to prescribe because either there are several similarly effective alternative treatments available or there is a more effective alternative available.
“Drugs with lower added clinical benefit may also be more likely to have lower cost alternatives, be part of a step-therapy regimen, or have an unfavorable formulary placement.”
Source: AWM
