Effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising

The ACRP Wire published an article last week about a recent journal article about the first randomized control trial of the effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. The design of the study, published in the British Medical Journal, was an interesting twist. Direct-to-consumer prescription advertising is only legal in United States and New Zealand. The advertisements are ubiquitous in these countries, so how could you find a group who never saw such ads? The answer to finding a control group was Canada. Prescription advertising is illegal in Canada, but media from U.S. routinely spills over into border towns. So you had a group of English-speaking Canadians who see such advertising and a group of French-speaking Canadians who do not see such ads.

Consumer advertising for drugs is unlike other advertising, because it is not just a matter of motivating a person to buy a product. Drug advertising requires motivating a consumer to make an appointment with the doctor, keep the appointment, ask for the drug, get the physician to give a prescription, and then motivate the consumer to actually fill the prescription. That's a lot of steps between advertisement and sale of product. But for pharmaceutical companies, those steps lead to a potential for a lot of sales.

But does the advertising work? This study showed for some of the drugs there was little effect in prescription rates from the exposure to advertising and with others there was an initial spike in prescriptions that evened out over time. It is an interesting study that should contribute to the conversation in this country about whether such advertisements help or harm health consumers.

You can find additional information about the study procedures and results here: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/acrpwire/issues/2008-09-11/5.html