FDA: Drug Companies Pressure Agency For More Online Ads

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - FDA: Drug Companies Pressure Agency For More Online Ads stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

MATTHEW PERRONE | 11/11/09 03:30 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Fda

WASHINGTON — As federal regulators take their first tentative steps toward policing the wild west of medical information online, pharmaceutical companies are pressing their case to market drugs via Google, Twitter and other Web sites.

The Food and Drug Administration will convene a two-day meeting beginning Thursday to hear the drug industry's position on Internet marketing. The agency has agreed to consider developing rules for online advertising after companies complained that the current guidelines for traditional media – which require a detailed list of possible side effects – have left them hamstrung on the Web.

An estimated 83 percent of Internet users search for health information online, according to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center.

A few drugmakers have begun trying to reach patients via social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube. But overall the industry's online presence trails other sectors, including retail, financial services and computer makers.

In the first half of 2009, pharmaceutical companies represented just 4 percent of the $10.9 billion spent on online advertising, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Industry observers say companies have largely steered clear of the Web for fear of running afoul of FDA regulators, who have not defined the rules of operating online.

In a public statement announcing the meeting, the FDA acknowledged that "emerging technologies may require the agency to provide additional guidance." But some industry experts worry the FDA's rule development process – which often takes years – cannot keep pace with online innovation.

"What's happening is these new media are emerging at an increasingly rapid rate, and are being regulated by an agency that moves very slowly," said attorney Mark Senak, who advises drug companies as a consultant for communications firm Fleishman-Hillard. "In essence, you have a regulatory communication crisis developing."

Story continues below
advertisement

The vast majority of the pharmaceutical industry's roughly $4.5 billion in annual marketing is still spent on traditional TV and magazine advertising, where the rules are clear: all ads that mention a drug must provide a balanced picture of its risks and benefits.

The requirement to disclose risk information demands those long lists of side effects heard during TV and radio spots, as well as the large blocks of small print seen in magazine ads.

When drug companies have tried to adapt such ads to the abbreviated language of Google and Yahoo, they've run into trouble. In April, the FDA fired off warning letters to Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline PLC and a dozen other drugmakers for search engine ads that did not mention drug risks.

The ads – called sponsored links – appear on the screen margins of sites like Google when users search for certain key words. With a maximum of just 25 words, the links did not include information about potential side effects, making them illegal, according to the FDA.

On Thursday, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America group will argue that the FDA should relax its standards to accommodate new online approaches to marketing.

In documents released ahead of the meeting, PhRMA suggests the agency develop a logo that could be used in place of hundreds of words about drug risks. The logo would link viewers to the drug's full risk information, allowing manufacturers to send messages about their drugs on sites like Twitter, which has a 140-character limit.

But industry observers say the online marketing environment is not as restrictive to drugmakers as some suggest. Pharma Marketing News publisher John Mack says drug companies already are free to post abbreviated ads about diseases and treatments – provided they don't mention a specific product.

"They are very hell-bent on including brand names in their ads," said Mack. "If all they wanted to do is direct people to useful health information, there are lots of ways to accomplish that."

PhRMA will also press the FDA to narrowly define drug companies' responsibility for policing information about their products.

Pharmaceutical promotions can only discuss drug uses that have been cleared by the FDA. But manufacturers worry they could be held responsible for comments about unapproved uses posted by users of blogs and interactive Web sites like YouTube, where some drug companies offer videos about diseases and medical science.

"Pharmaceutical companies control their own sites, their own agents and their own employees," PhRMA assistant general counsel Jeffrey Francer said in a media briefing Monday. "But there is no sensible basis to hold manufacturers accountable for third-party statements."

The FDA also is slated to hear from individual drug companies, medical device makers, attorneys and advertising executives.

Even after the FDA transcribes and reviews hours of testimony, the agency will only be in the preliminary stages of crafting new guidelines. According to Senak, the FDA is unlikely to release its final regulations until 2011 – when they may already be outdated.

"The danger is that the agency takes so long to get this done, and done right, that tremendous opportunities are lost," said Senak.

A spokeswoman for the FDA declined to comment on the agency's timeline.

"Next steps after the meeting will be to review all the testimony provided at the hearing and the comments, information and data submitted to the docket," Shelly Burgess wrote in an e-mail.

WASHINGTON — As federal regulators take their first tentative steps toward policing the wild west of medical information online, pharmaceutical companies are pressing their case to market drugs ...
WASHINGTON — As federal regulators take their first tentative steps toward policing the wild west of medical information online, pharmaceutical companies are pressing their case to market drugs ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
10
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- ReedYoung I'm a Fan of ReedYoung 137 fans permalink
photo

That would be a step in the wrong direction. Drugs should be marketed to doctors only, if at all. Looking for medical information online does not qualify patients who don't have a PhD to self-diagnose and prescribe medications. The purpose of advertising is always to portray the product in the best possible light, and for medicine, that is inherently deceptive to every audience but the community of doctors qualified to diagnose the ailments for which each drug is intended. This is a stupid idea that the FDA should not even consider.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 11/12/2009
photo

If I see ads for pharmaceuticals on my facebook page, I am going to close them and call them indecent.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 11/12/2009
- NewArtz I'm a Fan of NewArtz 79 fans permalink
photo

Advertising is used to push a product toward a potential market. The concern here is that the product sells.

Is the product good for the consumer?

Well, one way to find out is to push the product, get a lot of people to use it and find out how many people survive the experience with the product, and how many people are negatively impacted by the product, and,of course, whether or not the product is addictive enough in a physical or psychological way as to allow the consumer to become obsessed with having the product. This last item insures repeat customers.

Those who push chemicals which promise results need to advertise so that more people will volunteer to be a part of their market research strategy.

Medicines should be only known to the patient through their own medical research or from consulting someone trusted and knowledgeable about the medicine.

Drugs, however, are pushed by dealers.

At least that's what they teach my children at school.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 11/12/2009
- Conk I'm a Fan of Conk 18 fans permalink
photo

Hahahahah. The FDA is the drug companies. Bought, paid for, delivered. Coming to a death near you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 11/12/2009
- brady61995 I'm a Fan of brady61995 48 fans permalink
photo

i like the new ones where they have the teenages telling day hes going to have a heart attack if does not take some pill that might cause re ctal blee ding, dizziness, respratory failure or dea th,

i dont like the line phar pressures fda, fda needs to pressure pharm to be more responsible and hold them more accountable for the poi son they are selling

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 PM on 11/11/2009
photo

They need to take their ads off the television. Online, I don't have so much of a problem with.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 11/11/2009
- MysticInd I'm a Fan of MysticInd 10 fans permalink
photo

Totally agree with you blueskybig star!
I'm so mad at those depression ads... I feel I get depression from seeing them every hour or less and they're on every channel.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 PM on 11/11/2009
- brady61995 I'm a Fan of brady61995 48 fans permalink
photo

the only commercial worse is the broadview security ones

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 PM on 11/11/2009
photo

And yet I want to become an ad designer... most people HATE online ads.

Not to mention these drug companies, who are lower than the people one reads about in the tabloid section of the periodicals shelf by the checkout counter...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 PM on 11/11/2009

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect