» Articles » PMID: 16515686

A Cross-sectional Evidence-based Review of Pharmaceutical Promotional Marketing Brochures and Their Underlying Studies: is What They Tell Us Important and True?

Overview
Journal BMC Fam Pract
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2006 Mar 7
PMID 16515686
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: A major marketing technique used by pharmaceutical companies is direct-to-physician marketing. This form of marketing frequently employs promotional marketing brochures, based on clinical research, which may influence how a physician prescribes medicines. This study's objective was to investigate whether or not the information in promotional brochures presented to physicians by pharmaceutical representatives is accurate, consistent, and valid with respect to the actual studies upon which the promotional brochures are based.

Methods: Physicians in five clinics were asked to consecutively collect pharmaceutical promotional brochures and to send them all to a centralized location. The brochures for any class of medication were collected on a continuous basis until 20 distinct promotional brochures were received by a central location. Once the brochure was received, the corresponding original study was obtained. Two blinded reviewers performed an evidence-based review of the article, comparing data that was printed on the brochure to what was found in the original study.

Results: Among the 20 studies, 75% of the studies were found to be valid, 80% were funded by the pharmaceutical company, 60% of the studies and the corresponding brochures presented patient-oriented outcomes, and 40% were compared to another treatment regimen. Of the 19 brochures that presented the data as graphs, 4 brochures presented a relative risk reduction while only 1 brochure presented an absolute risk reduction. 15% of the promotional marketing brochures presented data that was different from what was in the original published study.

Conclusion: Given the present findings, physicians should be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding a medication based on the marketing brochures provided by pharmaceutical companies.

Citing Articles

Pharmaceutical Drug Promotion and Rational Drug Use: Assessment of Healthcare Workers Perspective.

Akena C, Ssemanda M, Abdelaziz A, Munanura E Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2024; 13:127-138.

PMID: 39156079 PMC: 11330259. DOI: 10.2147/IPRP.S466004.


Marketing of medicines in primary care: An analysis of direct marketing mailings and advertisements.

Dankers M, Verlegh P, Weber K, Nelissen-Vrancken M, van Dijk L, Mantel-Teeuwisse A PLoS One. 2023; 18(8):e0290603.

PMID: 37639431 PMC: 10461816. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290603.


Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.

Fulone I, Cadogan C, Barberato-Filho S, Bergamaschi C, Mazzei L, Lopes L Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 6:CD013780.

PMID: 37288951 PMC: 10250001. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013780.pub2.


Pharmaceutical brochures in Lebanon: do they meet WHO recommendations?.

Fadoul Y, Haddad C, Habib J, Zoghbi M BMC Prim Care. 2022; 23(1):314.

PMID: 36474170 PMC: 9724251. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01930-5.


A study of perceptions and exposure of drug promotional literature among clinicians in a teaching hospital.

Sharma S, Akhoon N, Moe H, Nair D, Shashidhar V Perspect Clin Res. 2021; 12(3):140-145.

PMID: 34386378 PMC: 8323565. DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_36_19.


References
1.
Wazana A . Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift?. JAMA. 2000; 283(3):373-80. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.3.373. View

2.
Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin J . Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46(5):423-9. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v. View

3.
Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields K, Bennett C, Adams J . The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000; 356(9230):635-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02605-2. View

4.
Figueiras A, Caamano F, Gestal-Otero J . Influence of physician's education, drug information and medical-care settings on the quality of drugs prescribed. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2001; 56(9-10):747-53. DOI: 10.1007/s002280000217. View

5.
Opie L, Schall R . Evidence-based evaluation of calcium channel blockers for hypertension: equality of mortality and cardiovascular risk relative to conventional therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39(2):315-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01728-4. View