Dataset Information

Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Healthcare professionals are exposed to advertisements for prescription drugs in medical journals. Such advertisements may increase prescriptions of new drugs at the expense of older treatments even when they have no added benefits, are more harmful, and are more expensive. The publication of medical advertisements therefore raises ethical questions related to editorial integrity.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study of all medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association in 2015. Drugs advertised 6 times or more were compared with older comparators: (1) comparative evidence of added benefit; (2) Defined Daily Dose cost; (3) regulatory safety announcements; and (4) completed and ongoing post-marketing studies 3 years after advertising.

Results

We found 158 medical advertisements for 35 prescription drugs published in 24 issues during 2015, with a median of 7 advertisements per issue (range 0 to 11). Four drug groups and 5 single drugs were advertised 6 times or more, for a total of 10 indications, and we made 14 comparisons with older treatments. We found: (1) 'no added benefit' in 4 (29%) of 14 comparisons, 'uncertain benefits' in 7 (50%), and 'no evidence' in 3 (21%) comparisons. In no comparison did we find evidence of 'substantial added benefit' for the new drug; (2) advertised drugs were 2 to 196 times (median 6) more expensive per Defined Daily Dose; (3) 11 safety announcements for five advertised drugs were issued compared to one announcement for one comparator drug; (4) 20 post-marketing studies (7 completed, 13 ongoing) were requested for the advertised drugs versus 10 studies (4 completed, 6 ongoing) for the comparator drugs, and 7 studies (2 completed, 5 ongoing) assessed both an advertised and a comparator drug at 3 year follow-up.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study of medical advertisements published in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association during 2015, the most advertised drugs did not have documented substantial added benefits over older treatments, whereas they were substantially more expensive. From January 2021, the Journal of the Danish Medical Association no longer publishes medical advertisements.

SUBMITTER: Boesen K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8108346 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysician-directed pharmaceutical advertising is regulated in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); adherence to current FDA guidelines is unknown. Our objective was to determine adherence rates of physician-directed print advertisements in biomedical journals to FDA guidelines and describe content important for safe prescribing.Methods and findingsCross-sectional analysis of November 2008 pharmaceutical advertisements within top U.S.-based biomedical journals publishing original research. We excluded advertisements for devices, over the counter medications, and disease awareness. We utilized FDA guideline items identifying unique forms of advertisement bias to categorize advertisements as adherent to FDA guidelines, possibly non-adherent to at least 1 item, or non-adherent to at least 1 item. We also evaluated advertisement content important for safe prescribing, including benefit quantification, risk information and verifiable references. All advertisements were evaluated by 2 or more investigators, with differences resolved by discussion. Twelve journals met inclusion criteria. Nine contained pharmaceutical advertisements, including 192 advertisements for 82 unique products; median 2 per product (range 1-14). Six "teaser" advertisements presented only drug names, leaving 83 full unique advertisements. Fifteen advertisements (18.1%) adhered to all FDA guidelines, 41 (49.4%) were non-adherent with at least one form of FDA-described bias, and 27 (32.5%) were possibly non-adherent due to incomplete information. Content important for safe prescribing was often incomplete; 57.8% of advertisements did not quantify serious risks, 48.2% lacked verifiable references and 28.9% failed to present adequate efficacy quantification. Study limitations included its focus on advertisements from a single month, the subjectivity of FDA guidelines themselves, and the necessary subjectivity of determinations of adherence.ConclusionsFew physician-directed print pharmaceutical advertisements adhere to all FDA guidelines; over half fail to quantify serious risks. The FDA could better protect public health by creating new more objective advertisement guidelines requiring transparent presentation of basic safety and efficacy information.

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians frequently use continuing medical education (CME) in journals. However, little is known of the evaluation of journal CME by readers and also user and participation characteristics. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, the journal of the German Medical Association, is distributed to every physician in Germany and regularly offers its readers CME articles. Therefore, it provides a unique opportunity to analyze a journal CME program directed at an entire population of physicians.ObjectiveThe aim is to show key sociodemographic characteristics of participants, frequency and temporal distributions of participations, and to analyze whether the articles are suitable for a general medical audience, how physicians rate the CME articles, how successful they were in answering simple multiple-choice questions, and to detect distinct clusters of participants.MethodsUsing obligatory online evaluation forms and multiple-choice questions, we analyzed all participations of the entire 142 CME articles published between September 2004 and February 2014. We compared demographic characteristics of participants with official figures on those characteristics as provided by the German Medical Association.ResultsA total of 128,398 physicians and therapists (male: 54.64%, 70,155/128,393; median age class 40 to 49 years) participated 2,339,802 times (mean 16,478, SD 6436 participations/article). Depending on the year, between 12.33% (44,064/357,252) and 16.15% (50,259/311,230) of all physicians in the country participated at least once. The CME program was disproportionally popular with physicians in private practice, and many participations took place in the early mornings and evenings (4544.53%, 1,041,931/2,339,802) as well as over the weekend (28.70%, 671,563/2,339,802). Participation by specialty (ranked in descending order) was internal medicine (18.25%, 23,434/128,392), general medicine (16.38%, 21,033/128,392), anesthesiology (10.00%, 12,840/128,392), and surgery (7.06%, 9059/128,392). Participants rated the CME articles as intelligible to a wider medical audience and filling clinically relevant knowledge gaps; 78.57% (1,838,358/2,339,781) of the sample gave the CME articles very good or good marks. Cluster analysis revealed three groups, one comprised of only women, with two-thirds working in private practice.ConclusionsThe CME article series of Deutsches Ärzteblatt is used on a regular basis by a considerable proportion of all physicians in Germany; its multidisciplinary articles are suitable to a broad spectrum of medical specialties. The program seems to be particularly attractive for physicians in private practice and those who want to participate from their homes and on weekends. Although many physicians emphasize that the articles address gaps in knowledge, it remains to be investigated how this impacts professional performance and patient outcomes.