The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7228 p861
14 December 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

National Institute for Clinical Excellence summary

American-style advertising culturally inappropriate, says ABPI deputy director-general

Pharmaceutical manufacturers do not want American-style advertising for drugs, only to provide patients with information on specific drugs.

This is the message that Andrew Curl, deputy director-general of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, brought to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence annual conference. He told delegates: "We do not think [US-style advertising] is culturally appropriate. But with the data we have developed about the products, their success, their usefulness and their therapies, we believe that we can provide complementary information to that provided by the general practitioner."

He said patients were already calling companies for information on specific products, only to be told to go to their GP, who was invariably time-pressed and often not able to give the time to a patient that he or she needed. In addition, some patients might choose to access information from the internet, the source and quality of which could be questionable.

"The one group of people that cannot provide clear factual data on products on their own websites are the originators and owners of that data — the companies that developed the products in the first place," Mr Curl said. He added that the UK situation, where manufacturers are prevented from giving direct-to-consumer drug information by statute, is not satisfactory to patients and does not help them make decisions about their illness and how to manage it.

Motives questioned

Allan Asher, campaigns director of the Consumer's Association, agreed that manufacturers had to be active major players in information provision, but also questioned the motives of information providers. "Too often information is not aimed at patients at all," he said. "[It] has all sorts of goals and roles, often the last or least of which is to empower consumers to take effective control of their situation. The goal of direct promotion [of drugs] is for pretty self-evident reasons — to promote sales. The products that are inevitably promoted are the expensive ones."

Mr Asher added that a similar debate had taken place in New Zealand, which has now liberalised provision of information from manufacturers to patients. This liberalisation, he said, has led to a situation similar to that in the US, with high costs and inappropriate promotions. Mr Asher argued that the real debate was about seeking to fill the information gap and give patients a realistic idea about what will happen to them during their illness and treatment.

Meanwhile, David Pink, chief executive of the Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance, said that the situation where patients were not allowed to get information from pharmaceutical companies would eventually become unsustainable. "At the same time, many members of the LTCA are very worried about the US scene," he added.