tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post6520268905453817044..comments2024-03-28T13:38:36.788-04:00Comments on Pharma Marketing Blog: Scare Balance or Scare Tactics? A Weak Case Against More DTC Risk InformationVladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04114063498108633047noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-63956367748174548972008-11-26T07:04:00.000-05:002008-11-26T07:04:00.000-05:00Bob,I must correct you by pointing out that I neve...Bob,<BR/><BR/>I must correct you by pointing out that I never accused you of saying there is no need for risk information in ads. I read what I wrote over and over and cannot find this. I also believe I was careful in quoting you extensively so that people can see that you were NOT advocating eliminating risk.<BR/><BR/>What I said -- and I believe I have my facts right -- is that you never mentioned benefit statements in DTC ads. This struck me as odd because you started out talking about "fair balance" but never really talked about balance in your piece. And balance is really what we should be talking about. Hence, I tried to offer the other side of the balance equation and suggest that maybe benefit claims in DTC ads are too extreme leading people to believe they may reap more benefit than scientifically justified.<BR/><BR/>IMHOPharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-33308381677346592792008-11-26T00:57:00.000-05:002008-11-26T00:57:00.000-05:00John I never said we do not need risk information ...John I never said we do not need risk information in ads. I wrote the column to point out that we need to understand what risk communication really does for consumers. I have asked the FDA to put odds of occurrence tables in ads. They will only accept clinical trial data and I have asked they get a panel of neutral experts to use all avaialble data including post markteting data. Consumers need to know the real odds of bad things happening to them, not a litany of possible and highly improbable side effects listed together.<BR/><BR/>I have lobbied FDA to require patient friendly brief summaries for years and have been openly critical of my supposed seminar attending audience for years over their lack of adequate consumer risk disclosure. Anyone who has heard me speak knows that. So please be fair and stop assuming I am a paid lobbyist for the drug companies. My seminars are well attended because we provide alternate views including past guests Ralph Nader, Henry Waxman, Joe Kennedy, Jerry Avorn, John Abramson and many other industry critics. Of course those who are ignorant choose to believe otherwise but I know you are well aware of the truth but sometimes choose to forget the facts in your critiques.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-40628818697644123252008-11-25T07:49:00.000-05:002008-11-25T07:49:00.000-05:00Thanks for the correction. However, N is STILL a v...Thanks for the correction. However, N is STILL a very small number upon which to base scientific conclusions. If I ran a survey and there were only 107 responses -- completions -- I would not say that any differences between one group of 55 (say pharma respondents) and another group of 52 (non pharma respondents) was scientifically significant.PharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-45179366701685315112008-11-24T23:17:00.000-05:002008-11-24T23:17:00.000-05:00"In the Turin study, 60 men were not counsell..."In the Turin study, 60 men were not counselled on the drug's sexual side effect and 60 men were told "...it may cause erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, problems of ejaculation but these are uncommon." Only 107 men completed the study: 52 men in the first group reported problems compared to 55 in the second group.<BR/><BR/>This is the sort of small difference in a tiny sample that many experts would dismiss as not scientifically valid."<BR/><BR/>This is completely wrong, and it's alarming that someone with such a strong opinion on these matters would fail to interpret basic data. The link given in this post says the following:<BR/><BR/>"Data are referred to 107 patients who completed the study. Group 2 patients (N=55) reported a significant higher proportion of sexual side effects as compared to group 1 (N=52) (43.6 vs 15.3%)."<BR/><BR/>It appears "N" was misinterpreted as being the number of men reporting a problem. N is actually the number of subjects in each group who have completed the study, problem or not. The abstract states that 43.6% (or 24/55) of group 2 subjects reported a problem versus 15.3% (8/52) in group 1. That certainly is a significant difference, and it leads to the opposite conclusion from the one you've put forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-51205364070593147302008-11-21T15:02:00.000-05:002008-11-21T15:02:00.000-05:00What I think Harry was trying to get at with his p...What I think Harry was trying to get at with his parlor game is the perceptions of the audience regarding drug safety in general. Once you know that, it is easier to develop a communications program that takes this into account. For example, if your audience were doctors who tend to believe drugs are pretty safe, your communication program to them would be different than to patients who generally think drugs are risky. You need a customized communication program; one size does not fit all in this case. <BR/><BR/>But just from the look at the results of Harry's Parlor game (the chart), there appears to be 2 types of respondents -- a minority that thinks drug are pretty safe, and a majority that thinks they are risky (it's not a bell curve centered around neutral).PharmaGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211557578124130640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-54763846509858928022008-11-21T14:16:00.000-05:002008-11-21T14:16:00.000-05:00The "parlor game", while clearly not a scientific ...The "parlor game", while clearly not a scientific survey, points out the difficulty in understanding risk -- for patients and for physicians.<BR/><BR/>The one survey question asks "How safe are prescription drugs"? You may as well ask "How safe is driving?" Or "How safe is flying on the Space Shuttle". For the latter two cases, you'll get a different result if you measure risk by number of incidents per total number of trips and then by number of incidents per mile travelled.<BR/><BR/>Risk (as well as safety) is relative, and needs to be weighed against benefit, QOL, etc.<BR/><BR/>Poorly formed questions get meaningless answers.<BR/><BR/>For more discussion on risk and safety, check out http://blogs.sas.com/hls/index.php?/archives/15-Safety-in-Numbers.html#extendeddhandelsmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09084380879085417282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8550428.post-11249537338649058752008-11-21T12:09:00.000-05:002008-11-21T12:09:00.000-05:00Clearly Mr Ehrlich has a conflict of interest here...Clearly Mr Ehrlich has a conflict of interest here. He needs the pharma companies to attend his seminars subscribe to his magazine (if that's what you want to call it). Transparency is the key to gaining consumer trust and right now there is zero trust between the industry and consumers. <BR/><BR/>Look at the case of Crestor data? I am sure that since the data is so great that reps are out promoting it to physicians..however if the data were bad they would be saying "we need to analyze the data more". People are not stupid and need to have ALL the facts before they make decisions about what to put into their bodiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com