Drug Ads

A House committee asked for documents related to the advertising of anemia drugs made by Thousand Oaks-based Amgen Inc. and Johnson & Johnson as part of an investigation into the ability of U.S. regulators to protect consumers from dangerous medications. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked the Health and Human Services Department for records on the marketing of the drugs, Amgen's Aranesp and J&J's Procrit.

A House Appropriations subcommittee voted Friday to require that the federal government's five-year, $1-billion youth anti-drug advertising campaign include anti-alcohol messages as well. By a voice vote, lawmakers approved an amendment by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles) requiring the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to include the ads against underage drinking.

David Lazarus claims that direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising results in "forcing physicians to respond to people's demands for heavily touted drugs." ("Ads spur urge for drugs," Consumer Confidential, Feb. 6.) Actually, physicians have a government-granted monopoly on prescribing drugs, and no patient can "force" a physician to do anything. Rather, research on physicians' behavior shows that they tend to interrupt quickly while their patients describe symptoms. Such advertising not only falls under the constitutional protection of free speech, but is also symptomatic of a competitive and innovative pharmaceutical market.

Like many doctors, Ron Ben-Ari thinks ads on TV for prescription drugs frequently go too far in touting a particular pill's benefits without adequately presenting the risks. But Ben-Ari, who has a practice at USC's Health Sciences Campus in East L.A., accepts that the ads have fundamentally altered the doctor-patient relationship. He's found that it can be fruitless to try to talk a patient out of seeking some name-brand medication, even when a cheaper alternative is available.

U.S. regulators told Novartis to discontinue a print ad that allegedly overstated the benefits of irritable bowel drug Zelnorm and omitted important safety information. The ad did not mention the drug's name but effectively promoted Zelnorm, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to the company. The ad overstated the drug's benefits by implying complete relief within three days, the FDA said.

A plastic bag tumbles to the ground, expelling puffs of white powder as it lands. A voice intones: "This bag costs $12,000 on the street." The scene changes to a black body bag as it is zipped up and slid into a morgue locker by a bespectacled man in a lab coat. "This bag costs $4.25," purrs the voice. "Not a very good return on your investment, is it?" In 15 seconds, the public service announcement, conceived by teen-agers David Horvath and Richard Lee, punches harder than "Just say no."

Allergan Inc.'s promotions for the eyelash-growing drug Latisse are "misleading" because they don't describe safety risks, regulators said. The Food and Drug Administration cited the website www.latisse.com and a placard with a timeline of the product's introduction in a warning letter to the Irvine company. Allergan says the timeline is no longer being used. Materials promoting a drug's benefits must also address its risks, which in this case include allergic reactions or hair growth outside the treatment area, the FDA said.

New indictments have been issued against Phoenix Sun guard Grant Gondrezick and two restaurant employees in a drug investigation that resulted in the April 16 indictment of 12 people, including five current and former Suns. The latest Maricopa County grand jury indictment accuses Gondrezick, a 24-year-old rookie, of transferring or offering to transfer "a quantity" of cocaine to a woman during December or January.