Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

While big pharma continues to struggle with the use of social media to promote its products, direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC), the method of choice for American pharmaceutical advertising is alive, well and robust. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that big pharma is reallocating some its traditional DTC advertising dollars to deliver drug ads to mobile devices which are growing in popularity. 

According to a recent article posted on PharmaLive, drug companies are mainly using mobile devices —in addition to delivering ads—to “help educate patients and motivate them to seek, accept, and adhere to therapy.” In other words, to more effectively promote their products to improve sales and corporate profits. Regardless of the motive, medical communication agencies have recognized the trend and have responded by launching mobile divisions and initiatives at their firms. Some agencies are now generating close to 50% of their revenues from mobile initiatives and campaigns. Further, many pharmaceutical companies have finally realized that corporate websites can be more than simple placeholders on the Internet. To that end, the PharmaLive post notes that pharmaceutical brand websites are evolving into a robust resource structured to be easily searchable and maintained. Maybe a better understanding and use of social media is next up for drug makers.

Pfizer remains the leading spender and purveyor of DTC advertising despite a 15% overall decrease in 2010 as compared with 2009. PharmLive reports that the company allocated $903.8 million to brands such as Lipitor, Pristiq, Viagra, Chantix, and Lyrica. Of these brands, Pristiq saw the highest increase of DTC advertising in 2010, up 17% to $122.2 million compared to 2009.

As mobile media continues to grow, don’t be surprised if someone develops a TIVO-like fast forward app to skip all of the DTC ads on your iPhone or android devices.

Until next time..

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It had to happen sooner or later and it did. There are now apps that jobseekers can download to their Apple and Android smartphones to prepare for job interviews. Gadget-savvy, Bob Tedeschi wrote a review of three of these apps in today’s NY Times.

The most popular jobseeker iPhone/iPad app was released last month by none other than Monster.com and is called “The Monster.com Interviews” app (go figure). The app is free and most useful for those jobseekers lucky enough to have been invited to participate in a face-to-face job interview. There are features in the app entitled Pre-Interview, Tips and Tricks and Post Interview. While I have not evaluated the app myself its reception by reviewers has been decidedly lukewarm. Monster.com says it is working on a similar app for Android phones but the company did not offer a timeline for the product.

Another app, which according to Tedeschi may be a better choice, is Interview Questions and Answers by SwipeQ ($2, Apple and Android). Unlike the Monster.com app, this one offers 150 common interview questions with sample answers and strategies to divine responses to difficult queries. Tedeschi suggested that the sample answers may be a bit esoteric at times and sometimes inexplicably crafted for those in the financial services industry (gee I wonder why). In any event, this one may be useful for inexperienced interviewees who need some help coming with answers to questions like “Tell me about your weaknesses” or “Describe how you overcame a particularly adverse situation.”

Finally, there is another interview-focused, free app for Android phones called Job Interview Q&A developed by Stanislav Bardyuk. This is an ad-driven app—that Tedeschi found overly intrusive—and offers questions and answers to common interview questions. Unfortunately, the quality and grammar of the answers to the interview questions that it offers were deemed lacking.

Of the three apps, the Monster.com app gets the highest marks. This is not surprising since Monster.com is the largest and most visited job board on the Internet. One of the more interesting features of the Monster.com iPhone app is the ability to make a video of a practice interview and watch yourself answer the questions offered by the app. While this may sound silly and a waste of time to some, it is important to remember that it is generally the face-to-face interview that determines whether or not a job offer will be forthcoming. And, there is a reason for the old adage:  “Practice makes perfect.”

For those of you who may be interested in other jobseeker and resume apps, check out a post on the Job Omelette blog entitled “10 Must-Have iPhone Apps”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While video may be losing some of its “newness" and cache in social media circles, it continues to grow and has become a mainstay of networking platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and of course YouTube!  Despite its popularity in most industries, the life sciences industry continues to eschew its use. The reasons for this are not clear but it is counter intuitive given the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies annually invest in direct-to-consumer advertising. 

Several big pharma companies, most notably Johnson & Johnson, have attempted to increase the use of video to connect with its stakeholders but its efforts haven’t yield much of an ROI. I suspect that most industry insiders will tell you that the main reason why video is not routinely used is the lack of regulatory guidelines guiding its use on social media platforms. While this is a facile explanation, the existing regulatory guidelines for direct-to-consumer television advertising certainly apply to video!

In a post today on the EyeonFDA blog, Mark Senak offers a variety of ways in which life sciences companies can leverage video to their advantage to promote good will among shareholders and stakeholders alike. His ideas make sense and are very much within the regulatory guidelines for direct-to-consumer advertising. Whether or not direct-to-consumer advertising is a good thing is a topic for another post!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Facebook has over 500 million users and Twitter has close to 175 million who write 95 million tweets daily. Conventionally wisdom suggests that using either of the platforms to advertise or brand a product or service would be a no brainer. However, my experience with paid ads on Facebook (I haven’t tried Twitter yet) suggests that the ROI on using social media to advertise may not be that substantial. There is no question that using social media tools like Facebook, Twitter, GroupOn  to build brand awareness or create a buzz about a product or service or to share coupons is extremely useful. But for straight up advertising and click through rates—not so much!!!

I will be the first to admit that I know little about marketing and advertising (although I did take an advertising class as a microbiology major @Cornell). However, the sheer number of users on Facebook and LinkedIn, suggested that I may be able to grow membership @ BioCrowd and promote readership @ BioJobBlog by advertising on these platforms. To that end,  I invested several hundred dollars into advertising campaigns on both platforms. Unfortunately neither campaign had any noticeable effects on enrollment at BioCrowd or readership at BioJobBlog. I attributed the lack of success of these campaigns to my woeful understanding of the arcane disciplines of marketing and advertising —I am a scientist, after all! 

Imagine my surprise (and delight) when I read an article in a local newspaper entitled “More and More Executives Using Social Media to Promote Business” which described several business owner’s experiences with advertising on social media that were identical to mine! Like me, they thought that advertising on Facebook and other social media platforms was so obvious that they couldn’t pass on the opportunity. Also, like me, they were extremely disappointed with the results. For example, a Princeton, NJ-based clothes retailer (which caters to college students) invested $500 on a Facebook ad. While the ad, that offered 20 percent discounts on clothing, received 1 million page views, not a single one translated into a sale! Others described similar experiences. I guess the old saying “misery loves company” may be apt here.

Although some still consider social media to be a passing fan, I strongly disagree. I think that social media is clearly here to stay and has become an essential way in which we communicate with one another. That said, because social media is only about six years old, it may be too soon to determine whether or not advertising on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn or other social media platforms can translate into a reasonable ROI. I guess only time (and money) will tell!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the past few years, life sciences companies have shed over 200,000 jobs. Unfortunately, downsizing at some of these companies may not be over yet. Nevertheless, companies are always looking to recruit new talent to keep up with normal job turnover rates or to replace highly specialized employees whose skills sets are essential to successfully running the business. Because many of these former life sciences employees possessed special or arcane talents and skill sets, advertising for their replacements using conventional methods like job boards and print ad advertising have historically met with limited success. The advent of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter have prompted HR professionals and hiring managers at some life sciences companies to test social media as a recruitment tool.

While Facebook may come to mind as the most likely social media tool for this purpose, it isn’t! This is because Facebook is primarily a social, not a professional network like LinkedIn or BioCrowd. Further, despite Facebook’s gargantuan size, the lack of real time interaction coupled with the sheer volume of updates, ads, activities and games at the site render it largely ineffective as a job advertising or recruiting tool.

Twitter, on the other hand, is an ideal medium to advertise jobs and attract new talent. This is because information that is broadcasted on Twitter has the potential to reaches large numbers of persons very rapidly. Moreover, regular Twitter users pay attention to activity on their feeds and like to “retweet” information that they find useful or helpful to their followers. Finally, many Twitter users regularly cull their follower lists to more accurately reflect their interests which suggest that the quality/focus of most follower lists on Twitter far surpasses that of friend networks on Facebook. For example, I manage the @BioCrowd Twitter feed. To that end, I decide who BioCrowd follows and wants to follow. And, not surprisingly, I only follow or allow individuals to follow BioCrowd  who are interested or work in the life sciences. Currently, BioCrowd has over 1,300 followers, all of whom work or are involved in some aspect of the life sciences industry. Because, I have intentionally created a highly specialized network of life sciences professionals, the likelihood of a prospective employer finding a “right fit” candidate by tweeting a job ad to the BioCrowd network greatly increases. Further, the ability of Twitter users to direct the job tweet to specific followers or retweet it preserves the longevity of the ad and improves its effectiveness. And, perhaps the best thing about using Twitter as a job announcement platform is that it is free!

The use of social media as a recruiting and retention tool by Fortune 500 companies like American Express, Best Buy and others is not new. However, its use as a recruitment platform by life sciences companies is very new to the life sciences companies. As many you may know, the life sciences industry has been slow to adopt the use of social media. Nevertheless, several companies like Merck (@merckcareers1) and AstraZeneca (@JoinAstraZeneca and @AstraZeneca Jobs) have decided to boldly go where no other pharmaceutical companies have gone before and are beginning to experiment with Twitter as a recruiting tool.  

About a year ago, I wrote a post that suggested that social media would be an ideal recruitment and retention tool for most life sciences companies. The fact that a couple of companies are testing this idea suggests that my idea may be a good one! 

If you know of other companies using Twitter to recruit new employees, please leave a comment or contact me.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (@BioCrowd)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I read a fascinating article today posted on MedEdNews Insider Blog about the formation of a new agency called Rx Entertainment that helps to match celebrities with direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns created by pharmaceutical companies. Admittedly, I hadn’t thought much about the matching process, but in the past I have posted a few rants about direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC), Brooke Shields hawking Latisse for Allergan and the Robert Jarvik Lipitor brouhaha.

So, the post about an entertainment agency that helps to match celebrities with DTC prescription drug advertising campaigns piqued my interest. The blog post was actually an interview that was conducted by the blogger with the founder of Entertainment Rx (I love the name)! The interviewer asked the Rx Entertainment founder for examples of her agency’s matching maker prowess.  The list (see below) is very impressive:

1. Claire Danes and Brooke Shields for Latisse
2. Food Network’s Ellie Krieger for Centecor in the area of arthritis
3. Gretchen Wilson for LapBand
4. Jennifer Lopez for childhood vaccines
5. Vanessa Williams and Virginia Madsen for Botox
6. Sally Field for Boniva
7. Jim Belushi, Bruce Jenner, Danica Patrick, and Patty Loveless for COPD
8. Keri Russell on a campaign for Sanofi-Aventis  on the Sounds of Pertussis vaccine campaign
9. Angelica Huston to help launch the well-known Merck Manual
10. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Marg Helgenberger for a fundraiser sponsored by P&G  where all the proceeds went to breast cancer research
11. Robert DeNiro to help launch a nicotine patch. He was premiering one of his films in NY and a fundraiser for cancer research was tied to the event.
12. Dara Torres worked with Centecor, and The National Psoriasis Foundation on a public service campaign to raise awareness for psoriasis
13. Hector Elizondo on a campaign for CaringforAlz; campaign focused on the caregivers of Alzheimers patients (Hector’s mother suffered from the condition).  This was a national campaign supported by the Exelon brand team at Novartis.

According to the post, Rx Entertain manages the negotiation process between the celebs and pharmaceutical/biotechnology from beginning to end. There was no mention of the salaries paid to the celebrities for their participation in the DTC ads.  However the Rx Entertainment founder did offer several bits of cautionary advice:

The celebrity spokesperson ought to have a legitimate tie to the disease and that A-list celebrities may not always be the most appropriate spokespeople because of the baggage (scheduling issues, entourage and additional difficulties) they may bring to the campaign. 

That said who knew that B-list celebs had good shots at potential careers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries? Talk about alternate career paths!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (ever consider acting????) !!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another BioJobBlog reader, who was previously burned on a puppy purchase, informed me of  another one of Donna Roberts’ puppy-selling scams. The information below was allegedly found on the American Kennel Club Online Breeder Classifieds under "Havanese"

Breeder Contact Information

Contact: DanaLyn Fitgerald

Location: SHAMONG, NJ 08088

Phone:

Email: mikimuppets@yahoo.com

In case you are wondering how Donna Roberts figures into the operation, DanaLyn (who lives in Barnegat, NJ) is another one of Donna Roberts’ daughters  who like her sister Dawn Abrams sells dogs on her mother’s behalf. 

While Donna's continued online ads are troubling, the fact that the American Kennel Club doesn't vet (so to speak) would-be advertisers on their classified ad sites is bothersome and unsettling.  If you can't trust what you find on the American Kennel Club's website, who can you trust when you want to purchase a healthy puppy?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Dog Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the market-analyst firm Manhattan Research released a list of the top branded pharma Web sites based on traffic generated from direct-to-consumer (DTC) television ads. The firm tracked about 250 different product sites and asked 6,575 consumers which websites they visited in the past 12 months. Consumers were asked to recall the reason they visited the site, whether they are taking the product, think they need the product, and the actions they took after they visited the site. The following list represents the top ten product websites that were more likely to have website traffic driven by DTC television ads. However, it is important to note that the rankings are not based on the volume of traffic but the percentage of traffic generated in response to integrated DTC advertising campaigns.  

1. NuvaRing—Merck (formerly Schering Plough formerly Organon)
2. Latisse—Allergan
3. Cialis—Lilly
4. Boniva—Roche
5. Abilify—Bristol Myers Squibb
6. Gardasil—Merck
7. Yaz— Bayer
8. Viagra—Pfizer
9. Levitra—Eli Lilly
10. Lunesta—Sepracor

Interestingly, of the top ten products on the list about 70% of them have to do with sex or woen's reproductive health. The exceptions include Abilify (depression and bipolar disease), Lunesta (insomnia) and Latisse (eyelash growth). Pfizer, Levitra and Cialis are treatments for ED, Gardasil is an anti-cervical cancer vaccine, Boniva is used to treat osteoporosis (post menopausal women) whereas Yaz and NuvaRing are both used for birth control.

I thought the results of the survey where interesting because many experts say the effectiveness of DTC television advertising may be waning with the growing use of online resources. While the results of this survey are not conclusive, it suggests that DTC television advertising won’t be going away anytime soon. And that the growing use of televisions as web portals may actually increase not diminish industry’s reliance on DTC television ads to sell its product and treatments—oy! 

Hat tip to George Koroneos at the PharmaExec.com blog.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Watching!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was chatting with a fellow medical writing colleague the other day and the topic of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising came up. I suggested that DTC advertising is largely ineffectual but my colleague suggested otherwise. To prove his point, he sent me a fascinating article entitled “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising: An Attitude Survey of Psychiatric Physicians (Bhanji et al. Primary Psychiatry. 2008; 15(11):67-71). The conclusion of the paper was somewhat surprising (to me anyway):

......pilot survey of psychiatrists revealed that DTC advertising has the potential to improve awareness of medical conditions and decrease the stigma of mental illness. Surveyed psychiatrists believed that DTC had little significant effect on their personal prescribing practices. However, >80% of respondents reported they had prescribed medications specifically requested by their patients. Most respondents failed to endorse that DTC had a positive effect on the doctor-patient relationship, or on improved patients’ medication compliance.

This suggests that people (at least those suffering from mental illness) listen to and likely learn about their illnesses from DTC ads. Further, it explains why drug makers continue to spend large sums of money on DTC advertising despite diminishing ROI on traditional print and television advertising revenues —it works!  While the effectiveness of DTC advertising was interesting, the real eye opener was the authors’ historical account of the evolution of DTC advertising in the US. 

Although currently a hot topic, DTC advertising in the US has been around for nearly 300 years. In 1708, Nicholas Boone placed the first advertisement for a patent medication

in a Boston newspaper. For the next 230 years, advertisements for patented medications claiming to treat everything from dandruff to infidelity could be found in magazines, newspapers, and traveling medicine shows. In 1938, Congress passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which gave the FDA authority over the labeling of pharmaceuticals and the Federal Trade Commission control over their advertising.

No new legislation was introduced until 1962 when the Kefauver-Harris amendments proposed the concept of consumer protectionism when dealing with pharmaceuticals.

Under these amendments, authority for drug promotional advertising review was reassigned to the FDA. The FDA established requirements similar to those in existence today, i.e., specifications of contraindications, effectiveness, side effect profiles, and a cost-benefit discussion. Virtually all of the advertisements were targeted to physicians.

In 1981, the pharmaceutical industry proposed shifting marketing to include the consumer. At issue was the requirement to include extensive clinical information on the product, making it problematic to use television media to reach potential customers. That same year the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hayes, requested the pharmaceutical industry put a voluntary moratorium on DTC advertising to allow the FDA to study their request to reduce the required disclaimers.

In 1985, the FDA concluded that the existing regulations to safeguard the public interest were adequate. This ruling had the effect of postponing the growth of DTC for the next 12 years. However, 1997 marked the beginning of rapid growth in DTC advertising. This change in marketing was attributed to the new FDA guidelines on broadcast DTC marketing. For the first time, drug manufacturers could present the name of the product and the condition it was intended to treat, and not report all of the contraindications.

The financial implications of this change in policy were enormous. In 1985, $17 million was spent on DTC marketing. By 2000, that figure rose to $2.5 billion, and $4.2 billion in 2005. In 2008, the estimated DTC marketing budget will be in the sum of $8 billion. Real spending on DTC advertising increased by 330% from 1996–2005.

As of 2007, only the US and New Zealand permit DTC advertising of prescription medications. In countries outside the US, the pharmaceutical industry has applied pressure to relax regulations regarding DTC marketing with little success. Despite DTC advertising being banned in most non-US countries, there is growing international concern that drug companies are circumventing legislation through the use of internet advertising and “spam” E-mail. Pharmaceutical companies also provide “awareness campaigns” or infomercials with vague references to prescription treatments in order to improve their sales abroad.

As previously mentioned on BioJobBlog, DTC advertising is big business. And, eliminating DTC advertising would likely help to reduce the cost associated with new drug development. This is because most drug makers don’t tell you that marketing and advertising costs are factored into the $1.0 billion that is generally believed to be the price associated with bringing a new drug to market. Who knew?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....

The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.

The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution.  I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)

blog comments powered by Disqus

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many readers have contacted me about advertising on BioJobBlog. To accommodate those requests, I will be offering side bar ads no wider than 196 pixels to interested parties. Please contact me regarding the ad rates.

When I first started BioJobBlog I had no intention of advertising to generate revenue. Unfortunately, blog maintenance costs and the economy have taken its toll on me. I will try to continue to deliver interesting, relevant and uncompromising content to you despite the modest advertising revenue I hope to capture.

Thanks for reading my blog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting sic Advertising???

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's New York Times reported that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters and ordered 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to stop running what it calls misleading ads on internet search pages displayed by search engines like Google. The agency faulted the companies for failing to identify product names (brand) and not listing potential side effects (only benefits) for the drugs. In other words, the ads lacked “fair balance” something that FDA stresses and that all drug makers are very familiar with. 

Drug makers and other interest groups pay search engines like Google to place ads on search result pages after someone types in a related search word. The sidebar ads typically contain a eye-catching headline about a relevant medical condition or product and links to websites promoting certain products. The companies receiving warning letters included: Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cephalon, Eli Lilly, Forrest Laboratories, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Not surprisingly, most of the world’s largest and most profitable were guilty of running misleading Internet search engine ads.

Historically, drug companies and FDA have engaged in a cat and mouse approach when it comes to advertising and marketing drug and medical devices and diagnostics. This is because FDA’s existing regulations that guide marketing and advertising practices are relatively lax and it provides drug makers with the opportunity to see how far they can push the agency before “they get caught.” While this practice may have been acceptable for print and television advertising, it may no longer be appropriate for Internet advertising— which potentially has a much broader and larger reach than traditional media because there are not national borders on the Web. Unfortunately, FDA has been slow (reluctant?) to react to digital media and is even more perplexed about social media and the drug industry. Rather than continue to play cat and mouse, I think it would be in the best interest of consumers if FDA and drug makers would sit down and craft new guidance on regulating Internet advertising and marketing practices. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the old rules are no longer sufficient as digital and social media continue to evolve.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How many of you read the printed ingredients and nutrition fact boxes found on packaged foods to help you decide which of two similar products you ought to buy? What if the same concept was applied to direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads? Do you think that it would be easier to determine which of two similar medications may be best for you? Well, researchers at Dartmouth Medical School think so! And, they are urging the US Food and Drug administration to adopt a similar concept for all DTC advertising.

Based on results from two randomized, clinical studies, the Dartmouth team proposed that numerical tables that quantify the benefits of a drug (compared with placebo) and also the odds of developing certain side effects should be included on DTC advertisements including television, print and web-based ads. In those studies, patients were shown drug ads that did and did not include a fact box. Participants looked at ads (with and without fact boxes) for two similar prescription heartburn medications and two widely prescribed cardiovascular drugs. The trial using the heartburn medications was designed to evaluate consumer decision-making about drugs that are used to treat symptoms whereas the cardiovascular medications trial was used to evaluate decision-making about the use of preventative medications that reduce the risk of future events, e.g., heartache or stroke.

Overall, the researchers said, the addition of facts boxes to prescription drug ads allowed consumers to make better decisions about the choices of drugs for their symptoms and were better informed about the benefits of drugs that could be used for prevention. For example, when asked which drug they would choose for heartburn 68 percent of those who had seen ads with facts boxes picked what the researchers referred to as "the superior drug," as compared with 31 percent of those who had seen ads without facts boxes. Also, about 80 percent of the facts-box group, as compared with 38 percent from the non-fact-box group, knew that both drugs had similar side effects. After looking at cardiovascular drug ads with or without fact-boxes, 72 percent of those who saw ads with facts boxes correctly described the risk reduction associated with both drugs whereas only 9% of non-fact-box participants were able to do this.

DTC advertising is big business—last year the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $4.8 billion on television and print ads alone. While DTC advertising is known to influence prescription drug sales, it is also somewhat controversial suggested Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine "Direct-to-consumer drug advertising is controversial in medical circles, largely out of concern that drug companies will talk patients into preferences not in their best interest, "But I often encounter the opposite problem in my patients. After hearing the litany of potential side effects of a drug, they absolutely refuse to take it," Katz said. Nevertheless, he and the Dartmouth researchers agree that better-informed patients make better drug choices.

Drs. Woloshin and Schwartz, leaders of the Dartmouth team, are scheduled to present their findings tomorrow to an FDA advisory panel on “risk communication.” The panel is tasked with examining how best to provide consumers with data about prescription drugs using printed matter. 

Adding fact-boxes to print, television or web-based ads won’t substantially increase the cost of creating and producing them. Also, rather than hurt prescription drug sales—what most pharmaceutical companies are worried about—the new approach may be good for the industry. According to Robert Ehrlich, who heads DTC Perspectives, a company that specializes in pharmaceutical marketing, “If there is high benefit and low risk, doctors will prescribe more of the drugs. If there is low benefit and high risks than the drug should probably not be on the market,” said Ehrlich.

Stay tuned for updates.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I previously posted a piece on BioJobBlog about direct-to-consumer advertising that is used by many pharma and biotech companies to induce people who see the ads to ask their physicians about a “ drug that they heard about on TV.” John Heubusch who runs Writing Frontier.com, read the post and pointed me in the direction of a piece that he wrote on the same topic. His slant on the topic is different than mine but we both reach similar conclusions—DTC advertising needs to be better regulated by FDA.

Until next time… 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link