Editorial - funny yet true! | Arthritis Information

 

Funny editorial -

http://www.thecharlotteweekly.com/Archives/2008/Jan.18/I%20w ant%20a%20new%20drug.html

Remember, delete any extra spaces if the link doesn't work.

Pip

Fibro, and Tiggers, and (Pooh) bears....OH MY!!!!!!

It's all a bit unsettling.  I really like that fibro commercial, but seeing it from her perspective makes me think there is some of what Consumer Reports warns of going on in that ad - after all, that is a frequently run commercial....just how many severe fibro sufferers are there out there?  It does seem like they are trying to get a lot of people on the bandwagon, asking their drs. for a med just because they saw it advertised, not because they need it enough to risk the side effects.

Pooh and Tigger?  As a parent, those are pretty scary images to ponder. 

This editorial talks about the Lyrica ad.

See, I used to like the ad before I saw it 10,000 times......
Suzanne2008-04-27 07:51:45It was obvious to me, before the editorial writer said it, that she hasn't done any research.  Lyrica has been around for years as an anti-neuropathic, long before it was approved for fibro.  And yes, fibro can make you want to lie down on the train tracks and there are a lot of severe sufferers out there from what I've encountered.  This editorial is almost as foolish as the Lyrica commercial.Hey BOTH Suzanne's! Ok, maybe I'm missing something here. Why would someone be thinking "hmmmm, gonna go get some of that" if they didn't have the disease that the drug is for?  Hasn't crossed my mind to take Lyrica because I don't have fibro.  Doctors are already using Lyrica to treat pain not dx'd as fibro.  Not only in adults.  

And yes, patients do go in and ask for meds they have seen on commercials, even when they don't really have the condition.  RLS is frequently given as an example of that scenario.  And who knew so many men suffer from you-know-what?  I've seen more ED meds advertised in the past week than, oh, soft drinks or minivans.
Pip, if that was the writer's point, I don't think she made it very well.  I know there are people who don't need these meds (generalizing about all advertised meds here) who "ask their doctor".  I don't like the advertising, but I also don't know what is the best way to let actual sufferers know about new treatments since many don't do the kind of networking and research that many of us here do.  Plus, there will always be people who learn about a med, whether on TV, online or from a friend, who will go running to their doctor.  The doctors need to say no....and we need to find a way to regulate the pharm reps who ply them with stuff.

 

All that being said, as far as I know Lyrica doesn't give you any kind of high or advantage if you don't suffer with nerve pain or fibro.  So I don't think people will be stampeding to their doctor for it. 

 

And doctors have been treating patients off-label long before these advertisements came along.  In my life I have taken several meds off-label, ones that I needed because existing approved treatments weren't sufficient.

Hmmm.  I guess it's the power of suggestion.That's a fun story. Lizard scales! The sad thing is I am suffering because of drug side effects. And I know that I am not alone.   I think it has to do with liability.  If they don't present all the possible side effects, someone is going to come along with a law suit.

I didn't read the editorial being discussed here, but I do have some thoughts about direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) or t.v. prescription drug ads.  With increasing health care costs, people having to pay higher insurance premiums, higher copays and prescription drug costs, do we need to pick up the tab for the passed-on-cost of DTCA as consumers, and as taxpayers, who pay for Medicare and Medicaid programs?  Its not like we can purchase these drugs over the counter, you need to see and talk to a doctor for a prescription.

European countries do not allow DTCA, only the US and New Zealand allow such advertising, and in Europe prescription drugs are cheaper than in the US, partly because of a ban on DTCA, but also because the government can negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.  (The drug lobby was successful in banning the federal government from negotiating for cheaper prescription drug prices for Medicare part D.)

With increasing health costs, I may have to pay more for enbrel, but I don't want to also pay for advertising costs of a drug.  My doctor is paid for medical advice, I don't need to pay some advertising agency trying to create a market for the latest developed drug for the main purpose of boosting profits to pay pharm CEOs, lobbyists, and shareholders.

If your interested in reading about stopping tv drug ads, see:

http://stopdrugads.org/learn_more.html

    

Snow -
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com