Two articles in the current Medical Journal of Australia point to disease-mongering of low testosterone.
David Handelsman, PhD, of the University of Sydney, reports that there has been at least a twofold increase in total expenditure on testosterone prescriptions in Australia over two decades.
Barbara Mintzes, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, and Agnes Vitry, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Australia, publish a piece in the current Medical Journal of Australia, “Disease mongering and low testosterone in the tale of two regulatory failures.” (subscription required for full access)
They begin:
Currently, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription-only medicines is legal in only two industrialised countries, the United States and New Zealand. However, in countries where direct-to-consumer advertising is not allowed, including Australia, Canada and countries in the European Union, pharmaceutical companies have found ways to sidestep this prohibition through intensive use of the internet, social media and print and broadcast media — for example, by running “help-seeking” or “disease awareness” campaigns. These unbranded promotional campaigns feature a condition treated by the manufacturer’s product, and often encourage viewers or readers to ask their doctor about a newly available treatment. However, there are many examples of drug company-funded disease-awareness campaigns that exaggerate disease risks and prevalence, and misrepresent treatment effectiveness. Aspects of ordinary life (such as menopause or unhappiness) are “medicalised”, and conditions that are often mild (such as irritable bowel syndrome and restless legs syndrome) are portrayed as serious illnesses. Disease-awareness campaigns can affect consultation and prescribing rates, with potential negative effects on public health if they encourage inaccurate health beliefs and incite consumers to request inappropriate treatments from health care providers.
And they conclude:
In Australia and Canada, the regulatory responses to low-testosterone campaigns highlight the need for changes to current approaches to enforcing the legislative ban on direct-to-consumer advertising. Like independent consumer and health professional organisations in Europe, Australia and Canada, we call for stricter limits on the role of drug companies in providing health information to the public because of the companies’ inherent conflicts of interest. Regulatory bodies should adopt and enforce the World Health Organization’s Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion, which states that:
“promotion” refers to all informational and persuasive
activities by manufacturers and distributors, the effect
of which is to induce the prescription, supply, purchase
and/or use of medicinal drugs.In particular, unbranded product advertising, and the use of pseudo-branding or similar techniques, should be explicitly prohibited. Pharmaceutical companies should be discouraged from illegal direct-to-consumer advertising through meaningful penalties, rather than non-prohibitive sanctions such as the symbolic fines imposed in Australia.
Side note: MSNBC today posted a story, “Men seek testosterone quick fix, with risks.”
Addendum on June 6: William Heisel this week wrote, “Steer Clear of Disease-Mongering Quicksand.”
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.
Michael Mirochna, MD
June 5, 2012 at 9:15 amIt would be awesome to limit these ridiculous campaigns. They are framed in such a slick way to convince people they have this problem and that “help” is available. Even if the “help” is available, if patients really knew the benefits (and if they were actually clinically meaningful, vs merely statistically) and if they had to pay for said device/medicine, there is no way in heck they’d ask for that medication.
Unfortunately, in this political climate, people are crying for less regulation. So I guess we have to let people have the right to be duped (and likely harmed). We certainly wouldn’t want to help people, then we’d be a nanny state. So instead we allow the PHARMA companies to make the rules and we all foot the bill when medicare spending goes up and our taxes or our premiums as well, in order to pay for things that don’t work, don’t help or hurt patients. Yuck.
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