Testimony
Thursday, September 22, 2005 Introduction Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Agency�s role and experience in oversight of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising. My testimony will review how FDA regulates consumer-directed advertising, the results of recent surveys the Agency has undertaken to ascertain attitudes of consumers and physicians toward this marketing activity, and future plans of the Agency to explore what issues may yet remain to be addressed by our regulation of DTC promotion. Helping all Americans make better informed decisions concerning their health care is a top priority of the Agency. Opinion surveys conducted by FDA demonstrate that DTC advertising can encourage consumers to seek information about an illness or condition and more information about a drug from their physician or pharmacist. FDA research also demonstrated, however, that patients and physicians believe consumer-directed advertising frequently overstates the benefits of drugs and understates the risks. Part of FDA�s mission to protect the public health is to help ensure that prescription drug information is not false or misleading. This is accomplished through a comprehensive surveillance, enforcement and education program, and by fostering optimal communication of labeling and promotional information to both health care professionals and to consumers. Statutory and Regulatory Authority FDA regulates the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs in the United States under authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, which includes approval of prescription drug labeling that provides information about the use of a drug. Section 502(n) of the FD&C Act provides the Agency with authority to regulate prescription drug advertisements, and the implementing regulations (Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] section 202.1) provide specifics about the content of such advertisements. Nothing in the law or regulations prohibits DTC promotion in any advertising medium even if the drug being advertised is a controlled substance. The advertising provisions of the FD&C Act do not address the issues of pharmaceutical coverage by insurance companies or drug product price. Consistent with the First Amendment, FDA may only regulate prescription drug advertising that is false or misleading. To that end, FDA regulations specify, among other things, that prescription drug advertisements cannot omit material facts, and must present a �fair balance� between benefit and risk information. Further, for print advertisements, the regulations specify that every risk addressed in the product�s approved labeling also must be disclosed in the brief summary. For broadcast advertisements, however, the regulations require ads to disclose the most significant risks that appear in the labeling. The regulations further require that broadcast advertisements either contain a brief summary of �all necessary information related to side effects and contraindications� or make adequate provision for dissemination of the product�s FDA-approved labeling (and the risk information it contains) in connection with the ad. With only rare exceptions, primarily for products receiving accelerated approval, FDA cannot require that prescription drug advertisements be reviewed prior to their use. In other words, FDA�s review of promotional materials is intended to occur post hoc � once the materials have appeared in the public domain. Thus, enforcement actions for advertising violations generally are taken post hoc as well. Most of FDA�s enforcement actions request that sponsors stop using the violative materials. In the more egregious cases, FDA asks sponsors to run corrective advertisements or issue corrective letters to correct product misimpressions created by false or misleading, materials. Perhaps related to this, frequently sponsors voluntarily seek prior comment from FDA on draft broadcast ads for their products. Promotional Material and Types of Advertisements Of the three different types of ads that product sponsors use to communicate with consumers, FDA regulates two of them; �product-claim� and �reminder� ads. The third type, �help-seeking� ads are not regulated by FDA. �Product-claim� ads are those ads which generally include both the name of a product and its use, or make a claim or representation about a prescription drug. Claims of drug benefits, such as safety and effectiveness, must be balanced with relevant disclosures of risks and limitations of efficacy. This balanced presentation of drug therapy is commonly referred to as �fair balance.� In addition, when used in print ads, sponsors must provide a brief summary of risk information included in the product�s FDA-approved labeling or, for broadcast �product-claim� ads, provide convenient access to the approved labeling. In our regulations, the phrase �adequate provision� is used to identify the convenient access option. �Reminder� ads may disclose the name of the product and certain specific descriptive information such as dosage form (i.e., tablet, capsule, or syrup) or price information, but they are not allowed to give the product�s indication (use) or to make any claims or representations about the product. Reminder ads specifically are not allowed for products with serious warnings (called �black box� warnings) in their approved labeling. The regulations specifically exempt �reminder� ads from the risk disclosure requirements because historically they were designed generally to remind health care professionals of a product�s availability. These ads can be confusing and frustrating to consumers � and potentially misleading � but, increasingly, we find them to be testing the limits of what might be considered a product claim. Because we believe they serve no useful purpose in the DTC arena, and have the potential to cause harm, we welcome the recent announcement from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) that essentially supports the elimination of this type of advertisement directed at a consumer audience. �Help-seeking� ads discuss a disease or condition and advise the audience to �see your doctor� for possible treatments. They need not include any risk information. Because no drug product is mentioned or implied, this type of ad is not considered to be a drug ad and is not regulated by FDA, but we enthusiastically support their use and have issued draft guidance on the subject. How Consumer-Directed Ads Are Regulated By FDA To allow time to evaluate and make this assessment, FDA issued a policy statement on September 2, 1983, requesting a voluntary moratorium on DTC ads. The industry complied with the request thus giving the Agency the time needed to study whether the current regulations developed in the 1960s for prescription drug advertising directed toward health care professionals provided sufficient safeguards to protect consumers when applied to DTC promotion. This also allowed the Agency time for a dialogue among consumers, health professionals, industry, and for interested parties to conduct research on aspects of consumer-oriented advertising. There was much discussion about DTC advertising including a 1984 symposium sponsored jointly by the University of Illinois and the Stanford Research Institute to discuss consumer-directed prescription drug advertising from a broad research and policy perspective. The voluntary moratorium remained in effect until FDA announced in the September 9, 1985, Federal Register (FR) Notice (50 FR 36677) its conclusion that the �current regulations governing prescription drug advertising provide sufficient safeguards to protect consumers.� During the early 1990s, sponsors increasingly used consumer print material (magazines, etc.) to advertise their products. The ads typically included a promotional message together with the brief summary of adverse effects, similar to that used in physician-directed ads. Of note, this type of brief summary statement, which frequently appears in small print using medical jargon, is not helpful for consumers. In the 1990s, product sponsors also started using television advertisements in a limited fashion. Television advertisements were limited because of the extensive disclosure needed to fulfill the brief summary requirement, and FDA and industry did not believe that it was feasible to disseminate the product�s approved labeling in connection with the ad. There was uncertainty about how best to satisfy the risk disclosure requirements and the results typically were unsatisfactory. For example, one method would be to scroll the brief summary on the screen, which would take a minute or more at a barely readable scrolling rate. By the mid-1990s, sponsors were placing �reminder� ads on television because these ads are not required to include a brief summary. Often these ads were confusing to consumers who were not knowledgeable about the name and use for these products. In response to increasing consumer demand for information and clarity, FDA issued a Federal Register Notice on August 16, 1995, announcing a public hearing to discuss several aspects of DTC advertising and a Notice for further comment on May 14, 1996, to clarify additional issues, including the brief summary requirement. Further, in light of changes in the ability of consumers to get additional product information, FDA began to consider whether broadcast ads could be constructed to ensure access to product labeling information, the only alternative to including the brief summary requirement. FDA considered suggestions about providing access to multiple sources of product labeling as a means of satisfying the requirement that consumers have convenient access to FDA-approved labeling when manufacturers broadcast a �product-claim� ad. In August 1997, FDA issued a draft guidance (finalized in 1999) entitled, �Guidance for Industry: Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements� (see Attachment A) that clarified the Agency�s interpretation of the existing regulations. The Guidance described an approach for ensuring that audiences exposed to prescription drug advertisements on television and radio have convenient access to the approved labeling of the advertised product. The proposed approach consisted of reference in the broadcast ad to four sources the consumer could use to obtain more detailed labeling information: a toll-free telephone number, a website address, a concurrently running print advertisement, and their health care professional. Following a comment period, and detailed review and consideration of the comments, FDA issued the guidance in final form in August 1999 (64 FR 43197, also found at: www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1804fnl.htm). FDA continued to recognize that the risk information accompanying consumer advertisements was unsatisfactory and sought ways to remedy this within the existing regulatory framework. In April 2001, FDA issued draft guidance for industry entitled, �Using FDA-Approved Patient Labeling in Consumer-Directed Print Advertisements.� The draft guidance described how FDA did not intend to object to the use of certain FDA-approved patient labeling to fulfill the brief summary requirement for prescription drug and biological product print advertisements directed toward consumers. FDA said it would not object to the use of FDA-approved patient labeling if such labeling were reprinted in full and discussed comprehensively in consumer-friendly language the product�s most serious and most common risks. FDA believed this labeling contained the information patients likely would find helpful in deciding whether to discuss with their health care provider the possible usefulness of the product for their own health care. Based on continuing research, including the on-going efforts to modernize the product package insert, in February 2004, FDA published a notice of availability and requested public comment on three draft guidances pertaining to consumer-directed promotion of medical products. These are entitled: �Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertising of Restricted Devices� �Brief Summary: Disclosing Risk Information in Consumer-Directed Print Advertisements� and �Help-Seeking and Other Disease Awareness Communications by or on Behalf of Drug and Device Firms.� These draft guidances are available on the FDA website at: www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac/lawregs.htm#Guidances and the public comments received are available at: www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets. Comments on the draft guidances, and resulting research, currently are under consideration. Oversight The total number of DTC broadcast advertisements (TV and radio) submitted to DDMAC in recent years was: 1999 � 293; 2000 � 443; 2001 � 376; 2002 � 486; 2003 � 474; and 2004 - 586. This includes both those advertisements that were proposed but not aired and those that were aired. Attachment B of this testimony shows 126 different products that have been the subjects of broadcast ads since August of 1997. Many of the products have been the subjects of multiple campaigns and many of the campaigns include different length �product-claim� commercials � variations of the initial commercial submitted to the Agency. DDMAC does not track the number of DTC print ads. Last year, however, DDMAC estimated the consumer pieces to be about one-sixth of the total, or about 8,400. It should be noted that these are not all DTC print and broadcast ads, but also consumer promotional pieces distributed by drug companies directly to consumers or through health care providers to patients. Many companies send new proposed DTC broadcast concepts to DDMAC for comments in advance of use, although companies are under no obligation to follow DDMAC�s advice. Consequently, DDMAC generally does not see the final broadcast ad before the company submits it as part of its post-marketing requirements at the time the ad is first aired on TV or radio. Educational Programs for Industry DDMAC aims to increase voluntary compliance by industry through educational programs. These programs include:
Enforcement Related To DTC Promotion
FDA attempts to target resources at the violations with the greatest public health impact. Since late 2001, we instituted the policy that all Warning Letters and untitled letters that originate within FDA, including DDMAC letters, must be reviewed and cleared by the Agency�s Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC) before issuance. FDA�s practice for clearing DDMAC Warning and untitled letters focuses on assuring that the letters cite the appropriate statutory and regulatory violations and are legally sustainable. Criteria Used When Issuing an Untitled or Warning Letter Since August 1997, for broadcast advertisements, FDA has issued:
Most of the violations cited were because the ad was misleading, e.g., the ad overstated or guaranteed the product�s efficacy, expanded the indication or the patient population approved for treatment, or minimized the risks of the product, through either inadequate presentation or omission of information. Since August 1997, for print advertisements, the Agency has issued:
Generally, the violations for �product-claim� print ads were similar to those cited above. Nearly all �reminder� ad violations were the result of representations about the product that triggered the need for full disclosure of benefits and risks. �Help-seeking� ad violations were due to a particular product being suggested in the message. FDA cannot determine how many specific advertisements serve as the denominator for assessing how many have resulted in enforcement action compared with those that have not. FDA's DTC Promotion Research In addition, FDA currently is conducting research on the best way to present information in the brief summary, the page of medical information following a print advertisement. As mentioned earlier, reprinting the physician labeling is not helpful to consumers because of small fonts, dense presentation, and highly technical language. FDA is investigating why consumers use the brief summary, what are the best types of information to include, and what are the best formats for presenting the information. Moreover, FDA plans to begin a number of research projects in the next year, including studies on the presentation of risk information in television DTC advertisements, the use of coupons and free offers in DTC advertising, and the interpretation of common phrases in DTC advertising. Two FDA Consumer Surveys On DTC Promotion The results of the two consumer surveys indicate that DTC advertising is very good at increasing awareness of products and may serve as stimulus for consumers to seek more information about their health and the drug product. Patients who asked about a specific brand of drug were more likely to be prescribed the drug they asked about, compared to patients who simply asked if treatment was available for their condition. Very few patients discuss the cost of treatment with their doctors. Many patients believe the ads overstate how well the drug works and that the ads do not present a fair balance of risk and benefit information about the product. Results of FDA's 2002 Survey of Physicians
Future Agency Activities Concerning DTC Advertising November 1 - 2, 2005, Public Hearing On DTC Promotion
Guidance Development Conclusion Proponents of DTC promotion argue that it has educational value and will improve the physician-patient relationship, increase patient compliance with drug therapy and physician visits, and generally satisfy consumer interest in obtaining desired drug information. Opponents contend that consumers do not have the expertise to evaluate accurately and comprehend prescription drug advertising, that physicians will feel pressure to prescribe drugs that are not needed, and that DTC promotion will damage the physician-patient relationship and increase drug prices. The Agency believes that, if done properly, prescription drug advertising can provide consumers with important information about new prescriptions and new indications for existing prescription drugs, as well as information about symptoms of treatable illnesses and other conditions. Done properly, prescription drug advertising can assist consumers in taking a pro-active role in improving their health. However, to be of value, these advertisements must not be false or misleading. In particular, FDA remains concerned that a majority of physicians and patients surveyed believe consumer advertisements overstate efficacy and understate risk. As a result, FDA will continue to closely monitor DTC advertising to help ensure this promotional activity is truthful and not misleading. Through our efforts including a public meeting, guidance development, research � both ours and that of others � FDA intends to examine comprehensively the current regulatory framework to ensure that it addresses appropriately the unique issues and challenges presented by consumer-directed advertising. This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Guidance for IndustryConsumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements Additional copies of this Guidance are available from: or Office of Communication, Training and Manufacturers Assistance, HFM-40 Center for Biologics or Communications Staff (HFV-12) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration DDMAC Guidance for Industry(1)Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements I. Introduction II. Background The prescription drug advertising regulations (21 CFR 202.1) distinguish between print and broadcast advertisements. Print advertisements must include the brief summary, which generally contains each of the risk concepts from the product's approved package labeling. Advertisements broadcast through media such as television, radio, or telephone communications systems must disclose the product�s major risks in either the audio or audio and visual parts of the presentation; this is sometimes called the major statement. This guidance does not address the major statement requirement. Sponsors of broadcast advertisements are also required to present a brief summary or, alternatively, may make �adequate provision ... for dissemination of the approved or permitted package labeling in connection with the broadcast presentation� (21 CFR 202.1(e)(1)). This is referred to as the adequate provision requirement. The regulations thus specify that the major statement, together with adequate provision for dissemination of the product�s approved labeling, can provide the information disclosure required for broadcast advertisements. The purpose of this guidance is to describe an approach that FDA believes can fulfill the requirement for adequate provision in connection with consumer-directed broadcast advertisements for prescription drug and biological products. The approach presumes that such advertisements:
III. Fulfilling the Adequate Provision Requirement
Telephone advertisements that make a product claim (not reminder advertisements) occur when there is a telephone communication between an individual and a product�s sponsor where both a product name and a representation or suggestion relating to a product (e.g., its indication) are disclosed by the sponsor. Under these circumstances, such advertisements are subject to the disclosure requirements of the Act and the regulations. However, telephone advertisements are different from advertisements broadcast through television and radio. By participating in the telephone communication, the consumer has already indicated his or her willingness to discuss the topic or receive additional information. Consequently, adequate provision for disseminating product labeling in connection with telephone advertisements may be achieved with fewer of the components listed above. For such advertisements, adequate provision could consist of the availability of the option of having product labeling mailed to the caller in a timely manner (e.g., within 2 business days for receipt generally within 4-6 days), or having the labeling read to them over the phone (e.g., by allowing consumers to select from prerecorded labeling topics), as well as disclosing that healthcare providers are a source of additional product information. When a broadcast advertisement is presented in a foreign language, the information sources that are part of the advertisement�s �adequate provision� mechanism (i.e., print advertisements or brochures, web sites, toll-free telephone number recorded messages or operators) should be in the language of the broadcast ad. Regardless of the language used for the advertisement, current broadcast advertising regulations require the dissemination of approved product labeling, which, in most cases, must be in English, and is generally written in language directed to healthcare professionals. The Agency strongly encourages sponsors to consider the benefits of also providing consumers with nonpromotional, consumer-friendly product information in the language of the broadcast ad (e.g., FDA-approved patient labeling or accurate, consumer-friendly translations of product labeling information). The FDA encourages sponsors who use this adequate provision mechanism to collect relevant data on consumer use and make their findings publicly known. FDA also encourages sponsors and other interested parties to make known their research relating to the overall effects of DTC promotion on the public health.
ATTACHMENT B: Prescription Drug Product Ads Broadcast Directly to Consumers Since 8/97
|
Includes Product Claim Ads and Reminder Ads |
||
Category |
Product |
|
Cholesterol/Heart Disease |
Altace |
|
Osteoporosis/Menopause |
Actonel |
|
Mental-Health |
Buspar (persistent anxiety) |
|
Smoking Cessation |
Nicotrol Inhaler |
|
Diabetes |
Avandia |
|
GERD-Related Heartburn |
Nexium (EE; stomach ulcer from NSAIDs) | |
Obesity |
Meridia |
|
STDs |
Aldara (genital warts) |
|
Arthritis |
Celebrex |
|
Contraception |
Depo-Provera |
|
Allergies |
Allegra |
|
Acute Otitis Media |
Omnicef (radio) |
|
Respiratory Tract Infections |
Avelox (radio) |
|
Influenza |
Relenza |
|
Overactive Bladder |
Detrol |
|
Migraines |
Imitrex |
|
Insomnia |
Ambien |
|
Skin/Hair-Related |
Botox Cosmetic (brow lines--temporary) |
|
Erectile Dysfunction (ED) |
Cialis Levitra MUSE Viagra (R only) |
|
Other |
Androgel (hypogonadism/low testosterone) |
ATTACHMENT C
Executive Summary
November 19, 2004
Kathryn J. Aikin, Ph.D.
Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
John L. Swasy, Ph.D.
Kogod School of Business
American University +
Amie C. Braman, Ph.D.
Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Executive Summary
Historically, prescription drug advertising in the United States was directed primarily toward health professionals, rather than consumers. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising, however, began to appear in print as early as the 1980s and spread increasingly to broadcast formats after the publication in 1997 of the FDA guidance for industry, Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements.(1) As the amount and visibility of DTC promotion increased, calls for research investigating the role of DTC advertising in either creating benefits or causing problems for consumers and the healthcare system intensified. To evaluate the effects of the guidance and DTC broadcast advertising, in general, on the public health and on doctor-patient interaction, FDA conducted two surveys of patients and one survey of physicians. These surveys explored patient and physician perspectives on DTC advertising as it relates to the healthcare experience. Findings indicate that DTC advertising has important positive and negative effects. The following summary provides a brief overview of the major findings from the three surveys.
Patient Surveys
Because DTC advertising for prescription drugs targets consumers, particularly those who might have a condition the drug treats, FDA surveyed samples of adults to assess their exposure to, perceptions of, and attitudes toward DTC advertising. FDA limited the sample to consumers (patients) who had visited a healthcare provider within the last 3 months because these individuals could also provide insight on how DTC advertising influenced their relationship and interactions with their health professionals. Two national telephone surveys were conducted in 1999 (response rate: 65%; sample size = 960) and 2002 (response rate: 53%; sample size = 944). The two surveys were designed to be comparable; minor modifications were made in 2002 for clarity or general improvement.
The main objective of the patient studies was to assess the variety of ways DTC advertising could influence the doctor-patient interaction. Both the 1999 and 2002 patient surveys queried respondents about:
Findings
The patient studies revealed a nearly universal awareness of DTC advertising, with 81 percent reporting exposure to broadcast or print promotion in 2002, an increase from 72 percent in 1999 (all differences reported are statistically significant at the 5 percent level). Although television was the most common vehicle of exposure, with print advertisements a close second, patient awareness of advertisements on the Internet increased from 1999 to 2002. Patients also reported substantial exposure to advertisements in grocery stores and pharmacies. Regardless of whether they understood the content, most patients knew that DTC advertisements typically contain both benefit and risk information.
Seeking Information
DTC advertisements prompted a sizable percentage of patients to seek additional information about the drug, the condition it treats, or health in general. In 2002, 43 percent of respondents reported that an advertisement caused them to look for more information, either about the drug or about their health. The most commonly reported sources of this additional information were healthcare providers. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents reported obtaining information from their doctors, and 51 percent obtained information from their pharmacists. A sizable proportion of respondents also gathered information from reference books (40%) and from friends, relatives, and neighbors (38%). The number of people searching the Internet for drug or health information jumped considerably�from 18 percent in 1999 to 38 percent in 2002�with information about risks being most commonly sought.
Far more people looked for information about side effects than about benefits (61% vs. 10%). Few people spontaneously reported that they search for information about cost (4%). DTC advertisements also prompted some people to seek information about new or previously untreated conditions, although the number of people who said that a DTC advertisement caused them to talk to a doctor about such conditions decreased from 27 percent in 1999 to 18 percent in 2002.
Visits to the Healthcare Provider
Our data show that people do not report DTC advertising as a primary reason for initiating a visit to the doctor. Only 4 percent of patients said they visited their doctor because of a DTC advertisement. Instead, health-related problems, such as previous conditions and check-ups, were the most common reasons given.
DTC advertising and other sources did appear to play a role in generating questions for the doctor. About one third of respondents indicated that a DTC advertisement had generated a question for their doctor, similar to the number that reported friends and family members as a source of questions. Approximately 20 percent reported that a reference book sparked a question.
There have been concerns that DTC advertising has the potential to create general expectations about receiving prescriptions. Our research does not provide strong support for this concern. Approximately 42 percent of patients expected a prescription at their most recent visit with their physicians. Of these patients, the greatest percentage (63%) said this was because they expected a refill for a current prescription. Another 17 percent said that they expected a prescription because they were sick and thought or knew they had a condition that required treatment. Only 6 percent said that they expected a prescription because of an advertisement they saw on television, and 5 percent said their expectations stemmed from an advertisement in a magazine. Note that these reasons are not mutually exclusive; patients may have had more than one reason for expecting a prescription (e.g., respondents could have seen an advertisement for a drug they were currently taking).
In both 1999 and 2002, the percentage of patients asking their doctor whether a prescription was available to treat their conditions remained constant at about 32 percent. Of these respondents, 39 percent asked about a specific brand. Patients described their physicians� reactions as nearly uniformly positive when they asked about a prescription drug. Over 90 percent reported that their doctor welcomed their questions, and 83 percent reported that the doctor responded as if their questions were a normal part of the visit.
About half of the patients reported that the doctor prescribed the drug they had asked about. Another 41 percent of patients were told to change their behavior or diet, and about a third received a recommendation for a different prescription drug. Although all patients were equally likely to receive a recommendation to make lifestyle changes or to use over the counter (OTC) or generic drugs, patients who asked specifically about a particular brand were more likely to receive a prescription for the requested drug than those who simply asked whether there was a prescription treatment available for them.
The surveys also measured patients� opinions about various positive and negative effects of DTC advertising. Because the data are most recent, the 2002 percentages are reported in this summary, but in some cases there were substantial differences between the 1999 and 2002 data. These differences are noted below. None of the differences were moderated by demographic characteristics or health conditions.
Patient perceptions of the type, quantity, and implications of the information they glean from advertisements are important considerations when assessing the effects of DTC advertising. Generally, about three out of four respondents (77%) agreed that DTC advertisements increase awareness of new drugs (a decline from 86% in 1999). Fifty-eight percent (58%) felt the ads provide enough information to make a decision about whether to discuss the drug with a doctor (a decline from 70%). In terms of specific content within the ads, 60 percent felt the ads do not provide enough information about risks, and 44 percent believed the ads lack adequate benefit information. Finally, 39 percent of respondents thought that DTC advertisements encourage patients to look for more information about potentially serious medical conditions (this question was asked only in 2002).
Seventy-three percent (73%) of patients agreed that the ads do not minimize the role of the physician in product decisions. Forty-three percent (43%) felt the ads help them have better discussions with their doctor (a decline from 62%). Moreover, 10 percent of patients were reluctant to talk to their doctors about an advertised drug for fear of implying a distrust of the doctor (an increase from 7%).
Two questions in the 2002 survey addressed the issue of accuracy in DTC advertisements, particularly with regard to claims that sponsors make. A little more than half (58%) believed the ads make the products seem better than they really are. Forty-two percent (42%) felt the advertisements make it seem like the drug will work for everyone.
Finally, patients were asked about how DTC influences their own health. Thirty-two percent (32%) felt the ads help them make better health decisions (a decline from 47%). Eighteen percent (18%) of respondents agreed that DTC advertisements remind them to take their medications, whereas 17 percent reported that the advertisements cause anxiety about their health. These last two questions were not asked in 1999.
About a third of respondents (32%) indicated that they �like seeing� DTC advertisements in 2002, a substantial decline from 1999, when 52 percent reported that they "liked seeing" DTC advertisements.
Other Important Findings
The brief summary, a section of medical information that accompanies the main display portion of all print DTC advertisements, is designed to provide detailed risk information in a publicly accessible, yet anonymous, environment. Overall, patients in the 2002 survey expressed an interest in the information provided in all parts of a print advertisement when they had a reason to consider the drug. About 78 percent of respondents reported reading all or almost all of the main body of the advertisement when interested, and 45 percent of patients reported reading all or almost all of the brief summary when they were interested in the drug. Despite this desire for information, half of those who read at least some of the brief summary described it as difficult to read.
Finally, respondents in our surveys reported rarely talking to their doctor about the cost of prescription drugs. Forty percent (40%) of respondents indicated that they never discuss this issue with their healthcare provider, whereas only 16 percent reported discussing it frequently. Patients who were female, in poor health, taking one or more prescription drugs, and lacking a prescription drug insurance plan were most likely to ask their doctors about the cost of treatment.
Physician Survey
The third survey, conducted in 2002, questioned office-based physicians (response rate: 46%; sample size = 500) about the role of DTC in influencing physicians� practices and relationships with their patients. The 250 primary care physicians (including internists, general practitioners, family practitioners, and obstetricians/gynecologists) and 250 specialists (including dermatologists, endocrinologists, allergists/pulmonologists, and psychiatrists) in this survey were chosen randomly from the American Medical Association�s Physician Masterfile, which contains a listing of all physicians who have graduated from medical school in the United States. Specialties were selected to reflect those areas of therapy in which DTC advertising was most prominent at the time of the study.
The 2002 physician questionnaire (Appendix B) asked for information regarding the frequency of questions physicians received from patients, physicians� responses to questions regarding patient questions, and prescribing behaviors involved in a recent, specific encounter in which a DTC-advertised drug was discussed. Finally, general questions were asked about physicians� opinions regarding DTC advertising.
Findings
Physicians reported an increase in the frequency of patient questions about healthcare topics during the last 5 years in all areas except OTC drugs. The most frequently asked questions were about drug treatments, with 85 percent of physicians reporting that their patients asked about prescription drugs frequently ("often/all the time") and 62 percent reporting that their patients asked about generic drugs frequently. Primary care physicians were significantly more likely than specialists to report an increase in patient questions about prescription drugs.
Specific Patient Encounters
Physicians were asked to focus on a specific, recent patient encounter in which a patient had initiated discussion about a prescription drug the patient had seen advertised. Physicians were then asked to describe in their own words specific benefits and problems that arose because of this exposure.
Forty-one percent of physicians reported that DTC exposure led to benefits, whereas 18 percent reported that the exposure led to problems. Benefits included better discussions, greater awareness of treatments, and DTC as a source for informing and educating patients. Problems included the time needed to correct misconceptions, requests for unnecessary drugs, and requests for one prescription treatment when another treatment was effective. Overall, 73 percent of physicians indicated that their patient in this encounter asked thoughtful questions because of the DTC exposure. However, 41 percent of all physicians indicated that their patient was confused about the effectiveness of the drug because of the DTC advertisement.
The physician survey distinguished between patients asking if there was a prescription drug to treat their problem and those asking for a particular prescription drug. Eighty-six percent (86%) of physicians recalled patients asking about a prescription drug, and 88 percent of these physicians reported that patients had the condition the drug treats. Although primary care physicians received more requests for a prescription treatment in general than did specialists (60% vs. 44%), the likelihood of prescribing the requested drug was similar (77% vs. 74%). When asked for a specific brand name drug, however, primary care physicians were both more likely to receive requests than specialists (65% vs. 52%) and also more likely to prescribe the drug (64% vs. 46%).
Physicians gave many reasons for not prescribing a requested drug. Among all physicians, the most frequently mentioned reasons were that the drug was not right for the patient and that another drug was more appropriate. Primary care physicians and specialists differed, however, in their primary reasons for not prescribing the requested drug. Primary care physicians reported not prescribing primarily because of the availability of a less expensive drug, the patient did not require a prescription drug, or the patient could engage in behavioral and diet changes. Specialists tended to decline the request because a different drug was more appropriate, the drug was not right for the patient, or the drug had side effects unknown to the patient.
About half of all physicians reported no pressure to prescribe, and 91 percent of physicians reported that the particular patient they recalled did not attempt to influence their treatment in a manner that would have been harmful to the patient. Primary care physicians did report more pressure to prescribe than did specialists, however, with 22 percent of primary care physicians feeling "somewhat" or "very pressured" to prescribe a drug, compared with 13 percent of specialists. Approximately 73 percent of primary care physicians reported that they thought patients came to the appointment expecting a prescription, whereas 63 percent of specialists felt the same way. Primary care physicians were more likely to say that this expectation influenced their decision to prescribe.
General Opinions about DTC Advertising
In addition to examining physicians� recall of recent, specific patient encounters, the study also investigated physicians� general opinions of the influence of DTC advertising on their patients and practices.
Doctors perceived differing levels of patient understanding about DTC advertised drugs. On one hand, more than 75 percent believed that their patients understood that these drugs are available only by prescription (92%), that only a doctor can make the decision about the appropriateness of the drugs (82%), and that patients understood the benefits of the drugs (78%). On the other hand, fewer than half believed that patients understood the risks and possible negative effects of the drugs (40%), the limitations of drug efficacy (30%), and the type of person who should avoid the drugs (25%).
Physicians were also asked their perceptions of general problems arising from their patients� exposure to DTC advertising. A majority of all physicians felt that patients confuse the relative risks and benefits of DTC-advertised drugs (65%) and that these advertisements lead patients to overestimate the efficacy of the drugs (75%). Smaller percentages of physicians believed that DTC advertising causes patients to question their diagnoses (38%) and that the advertising led to tension in the doctor-patient relationship (28%). In general, primary care physicians were more likely than specialists to indicate that DTC advertising causes problems for their patients and practice.
With regard to general benefits of DTC advertising, 72 percent of physicians agreed that DTC advertising increases awareness of possible treatments, and 44 percent of physicians believed that it facilitates earlier awareness of health conditions. About a third of physicians thought that DTC advertising increases the likelihood of proper medication usage, and a third believed it helps patients maintain their treatment over time.
At the end of the interview, physicians were asked to give their general impressions of the influence of DTC advertising on their patients and practice. Responses were evenly divided, with about one-third each indicating that it had a positive effect, a negative effect, or no effect at all. Primary care physicians (38%) were more likely than specialists (27%) to rate the overall influence of DTC advertising as having a somewhat or very negative effect on their patients and practice.
Conclusions
The opinions and experiences of patients and physicians are critical to an evaluation of how DTC advertising affects public health. DTC advertising may potentially affect this interaction by motivating information seeking, healthcare visits, questions, and/or requests. Ultimately, such motivation can have both positive and negative effects.
The three surveys conducted by FDA found both positive and negative effects of DTC advertising on doctor-patient interaction. By and large, DTC advertising seems to increase awareness of conditions and treatments, motivate questions for the healthcare provider, and help patients ask better questions. Our data provided no evidence of increased visits as a result of DTC advertising, and few patients reported that DTC advertising motivated physician visits. On the contrary, most people reported that health reasons prompted their visits.
It is clear, however, that DTC advertising also has effects that can be troubling. Although few physicians report excessive pressure to prescribe requested drugs from patients who have seen DTC advertisements, nearly half report feeling at least a little pressure to prescribe. Both patients and doctors indicate that DTC advertisements overstate drug efficacy and do not present a fair balance of benefit and risk information. Patients gave only modest ratings to the understandability of the brief summary included in print advertisements, information that is meant to provide a more complete picture of the advertised product�s risks. They also expressed some negative opinions about DTC advertising. Perhaps more important, fewer patients in the 2002 survey than in the survey conducted 3 years earlier indicated that DTC advertising was useful in terms of their interaction with their doctor and their healthcare decision making.
We continue to encourage research on all aspects of potential DTC influence on the interaction between patients and their physicians. The relationship between patients and physicians is essential for the proper dissemination of prescription drugs. Any influence that DTC advertising has on this special relationship may have broader implications for healthcare in general.
Last Revised: September 25, 2006