Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
OtherDebates

Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?

NO

Barbara Mintzes
Canadian Family Physician February 2009, 55 (2) 131-133;
Barbara Mintzes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: bmintzes@chspr.ubc.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs has increased enormously over the past decade in the United States and New Zealand, the 2 countries where it is legal. In 2005, more than $4.2 billion (US) was spent on DTCA in the United States,1 and Americans spent an average of 16 hours watching televised drug advertisements—far more time than they spent with family doctors.

Market research company IMS Health reviewed the returns on investment in DTCA for 49 brands from 1998 to 2003 and found that for “blockbuster” drugs, such as rofecoxib, companies on average obtained $3.66 per dollar invested.2 The key controversy is not whether DTCA stimulates sales, but whether or not this is good or bad for health, health care quality, and total health care costs.

Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is prohibited in Canada as a health protection measure. Manufacturers cannot advertise prescription-only drugs directly to the public because of their toxicity and the potential for harm from medically unnecessary or inappropriate use. Any debate over DTCA, however, must address enforcement. Despite its illegality, exposure to cross-border and, increasingly, “made-in-Canada” ads is widespread. Just because such ads are allowed in the United States, cross-border DTCA on US cable television is not inevitable. It is technically simple to replace US ads with local advertising. Similarly, “made-in-Canada” DTCA could be prevented under current laws—the question is one of political will. Succumbing to heavy pressure, Health Canada reinterpreted a 1975 price advertising regulation to allow one type of DTCA, branded “reminder” advertising, in 2000.3

Negative effects

In a Vancouver, BC, study of primary care, patient requests for advertised drugs affected prescribing volume and choice (albeit less strongly than in a US setting, a reflection of lowered exposure).4 In a 2002 survey of health professionals in Canada (N = 1975), 67% of GPs reported sometimes or often feeling pressured to prescribe advertised drugs.5 By portraying various medicines as a 100% effective solution to an array of life problems, DTCA turns doctors into gatekeepers for desired brands.

The 2006 tegaserod ad for irritable bowel syndrome is emblematic of the hazards of prescription drug advertising. The eye-catching ad featured women baring their bellies to reveal slogans. Closing shots panned women of many different ages and races, suggesting widespread use. Relief of vague symptoms along with a comparison to fibre and laxatives implied use for mild problems. But key information on safety concerns, limited effectiveness, and the limited appropriate patient population was lacking. In 2007, the drug was withdrawn from the market because of cardiovascular risks. The first Food and Drug Administration safety warning, on risks of ischemic colitis, dated back to 2004. Tegaserod prescriptions rose by 56% in a US Medicaid population and 42% in English speaking Canada following exposure to US DTCA campaigns.6

The 2004 market withdrawal of rofecoxib had already raised red flags about DTCA’s ability to rapidly stimulate sales of new drugs with emergent serious risks. Rofecoxib led to an estimated 88 000 to 140 000 heart attacks in the United States, 44% of which were fatal.7 It was among the most heavily advertised drugs for 4 years after the first large-scale clinical trial showed evidence of cardiac risks. In a Kaiser Permanente study, 20% of initial users of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors had requested prescriptions after seeing ads.8 These users were 4 times as likely as other users to be inconsistent with treatment guidelines.

Because of its focus on new, expensive drugs, DTCA drives up consumer costs. In New Zealand, DTCA for fluticasone asthma inhalers fueled broad substitution for beclomethasone, which is equally effective and less costly. More than $1 billion (US) was spent on US DTCA for esomeprazole; yet the same treatment effects can be achieved with generic omeprazole. Most new drugs have no therapeutic advantage over existing alternatives, and new serious risks are often discovered in the early postmarketing period. From a public health perspective, caution, not rapid uptake, is needed.

Social control

Is opposition to DTCA paternalistic? Independent consumer groups reject this claim, arguing that DTCA fails to provide the unbiased, comparative information needed for shared and informed treatment choices. Key information, such as the probability of treatment success, is usually missing. Instead, emotive messages dominate: in a sample of television ads, drug use was associated with happiness in 95% of ads, control over one’s life in 85%, and social approval in 78%.9 The US regulatory experience is also instructive—of 135 ads violating US law from 1997 to 2005, 84% minimized risks or exaggerated benefits.10

Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs affects prescribing volume and choice.11 In one study, physicians prescribed most DTCA drugs patients requested, but were 8 times more likely to judge those drugs as only “possible” or “unlikely” choices for similar patients than “very likely” choices.4 In an experimental study, patient requests led to twice as many antidepressant prescriptions for patients with depression and a 5-fold increase for patients with “adjustment disorder,” which does not require drug treatment.12 Patient requests were a stronger predictor of prescriptions than symptoms.

Undertreatment of depression is often cited as a problem DTCA could help solve, as population surveys have identified many untreated people who meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, criteria. A Canadian survey compared people with depression taking antidepressants with those not taking antidepressants (N = 9508).13 Half of those not taking antidepressants recovered within 5 weeks. Mean episode duration was 11 weeks versus 19 weeks for those taking antidepressants. Bottom line, many of the so-called “undertreated” patients might not actually require drugs.

Direct-to-consumer advertising can and does cause harm. Any benefits could be better achieved through public health campaigns. The law prohibiting DTCA remains valid, but needs better enforcement. A simple start is to repeal the price advertising regulation to eliminate reminder ads.3

If money is power, DTCA is indeed empowering. The question is, for whom and at what cost to the public and to medication as a social good?

Notes

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

  • Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising can cause damage by instigating rapid, widespread stimulation of use of new drugs before harmful effects are fully known.

  • Advertisements exaggerate treatment benefits and use emotive messages to target people with milder health problems, many of whom are unlikely to benefit from the drugs advertised.

  • Advertising leads to higher drug costs and overall health care costs through substitution of new, expensive drugs without treatment advantages.

  • Better enforcement of direct-to-consumer advertising laws in Canada is needed.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    Dr Mintzes was a consultant to the Federal Department of Justice for the legal case in the Ontario Superior Court, in which CanWest MediaWorks challenged the prohibition of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in the Food and Drugs Act.

  • Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 135.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. ↵
    DonohueJMCevascoMRosenthalMBA decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugsN Engl J Med2007357767381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    GascoigneDDTC at the crossroads: a “direct” hit … or miss?Plymouth Meeting, PAIMS Health2004
  3. ↵
    GardnerDMintzesBOstryADirect-to-consumer prescription drug advertising in Canada: permission by default?CMAJ200316954257
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    MintzesBBarerMLKravitzRLBassettKLexchinJKazanjianAHow does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCACMAJ2003169540512
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Environics Research Group LimitedGeneral public favours advertising of prescription drugs, but health care professionals have strong doubtsToronto, ONEnvironic Research Group Limited2002Available from: http://erg.environics.net/practice_areas/pharma/pdf/advertising_drugs.pdfAccessed 2008 Dec 22
  6. ↵
    LawMRMalumdarSRSoumeraiSBEffect of illicit direct to consumer advertising on use of etanercept, mometasone, and tegaserod in Canada: controlled longitudinal studyBMJ200833711055
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    GrahamDJCampenDHuiRSpenceMCheethamCLevyGRisk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control studyLancet2005365945847581
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    SpenceMMTelekiSSCheethamTCSchweitzerSOMillaresMDirect-to-consumer advertising of COX-2 inhibitors: effect on appropriateness of prescribingMed Care Res Rev200562554459
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    FroschDLKruegerPMHornikRCCronholmPFBargFKCreating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertisingAnn Fam Med200751613
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    United States Government Accountability OfficePrescription drugs. Improvements needed in FDA oversight of direct-to-consumer advertisingWashington, DCGovernment Accountability Office2006Available from: www.gao.gov/new.items/d0754.pdfAccessed 2009 Jan 5
  11. ↵
    GilbodySWilsonPWattIBenefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: a systematic reviewQual Saf Health Care200514424650
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    KravitzRLEpsteinRMFeldmanMDFranzCEAzariRWilkesMSInfluence of patients’ requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trialJAMA20052931619952002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    PattenSBThe impact of antidepressant treatment on population health: synthesis of data from two national data sources in CanadaPopul Health Metr2004219
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 55 (2)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 55, Issue 2
1 Feb 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?
Barbara Mintzes
Canadian Family Physician Feb 2009, 55 (2) 131-133;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?
Barbara Mintzes
Canadian Family Physician Feb 2009, 55 (2) 131-133;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Negative effects
    • Social control
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Le Canada devrait-il autoriser la publicité directe des médicaments d’ordonnance?
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Will the new opioid guidelines harm more people than they help?
  • Will the new opioid guidelines harm more people than they help?
  • Should peanut be allowed in schools?
Show more Debates

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire