Catchup from last week:
Dartmouth’s Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz had a New York Times op-ed piece last week, “Think Inside the Box,” promoting their terrific idea of “a simple model” for conveying “independent, plain-English facts” about prescription drugs. They write:
“The government should follow through on proposals to require fact boxes, similar to those that appear on food packaging, in every ad drug makers produce and along with every package of medication they sell.”
They provided the TImes with one mockup example of such a drug box for the drug Abilify, which I’ve included here:
“Abilify, an antipsychotic drug with domestic sales of $4.5 billion in 2010, which is approved for a variety of disorders, including depression that is only partly responsive to another drug. According to an Abilify advertisement, “approximately two out of three people being treated for depression still have depression symptoms”; the ad then suggests that people ask their doctor about adding Abilify to their drug regimen.
But, as is generally the case, the ad doesn’t tell them how well the drug works. And the professional label for doctors says only that the drug was “superior to placebo,” not by how much. These advertising and labeling practices are neither unusual nor unique to Abilify, and are in compliance with federal regulations.
The box, on the other hand, would quantify the benefits and side effects of Abilify used in combination with other antidepressants, drawing on the larger of the two six-week trials that formed the basis of its approval by the F.D.A. First, it would show how the drug scored versus a placebo (in Abilify’s case, not much: only three points lower on a 60-point scale, and it resolved depression for only 10 percent of patients — that is, 25 percent with Abilify versus 15 percent with just the placebo).
The box would also highlight Abilify’s most important side effects: it caused 21 percent of patients in the trials to develop akathisia, or severe restlessness, and 4 percent to gain a substantial amount of weight. And, as with all anti-depressants, there is a small increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior among many young adults.”
I’m sure Woloshin and Schwartz will discuss this concept this week when I join them as they co-host one of the consistently most helpful health care journalism training opportunities, the NIH Medicine in the Media workshop, held this year at Dartmouth in Hanover, NH. I’ll be a presenter during two sessions at the workshop.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
R Whitmire
July 11, 2011 at 11:13 amI would also add commentary discussing whether the measured differences are significant. For example, 5% vs. 1% weight gain might be significant, but it all depends on the number of people measured and the experimental set-up.
This is just like news sources reporting on political polls, where “candidate X” leads by 45% to 41%, but the polling errors are +/- 3%. There are differences, but because the margin of error overlaps, you can’t actually say there are meaningful differences.
Stephanie Wilborne
July 11, 2011 at 9:57 pmExcellant idea. How can we ask patients to be more active in their medical care if we continue to put obstacles in their way. Clearer and more simply stated prescription medication information is needed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like