Healthy Skepticism Library item: 1233

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Cassels A, Hughes MA, Cole C, Mintzes B, Lexchin J, McCormack JP.
Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs.
CMAJ 2003 Apr 29; 168:(9):1133-7
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/9/1133

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Patients routinely cite the media, after physicians and pharmacists, as a key source of information on new drugs, but there has been little research on the quality of drug information presented. We assessed newspaper descriptions of drug benefits and harms, the nature of the effects described and the presence or absence of other important information that can add context and balance to a report about a new drug.

METHODS: We looked at newspaper coverage in the year 2000 of 5 prescription drugs launched in Canada between 1996 and 2001 that received a high degree of media attention: atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir and raloxifene. We searched 24 of Canada’s largest daily newspapers for articles reporting at least one benefit or harm of any of these 5 drugs. We recorded the benefits and harms reported and analyzed how such information was presented; we also determined whether clinical or surrogate outcomes were mentioned; if and how drug effects were quantified; whether contraindications, other treatment options and costs were mentioned; and whether any information on affiliations of quoted interviewees and potential conflicts of interest was presented.

RESULTS: Our search yielded 193 articles reporting at least one benefit or harm for 1 of the 5 drugs. All of the articles mentioned at least one benefit, but 68% (132/193) made no mention of possible side effects or harms. Only 24% (120/510) of mentions of drug benefits and harms presented quantitative information. In 26% (31/120) of cases in which drug benefits and harms were quantified, the magnitude was presented only in relative terms, which can be misleading. Overall, 62% (119/193) of the articles gave no quantification of the benefits or harms. Thirty-seven (19%) of the 193 articles reported only surrogate benefits. Other information needed for informed drug-related decisions was often lacking: only 7 (4%) of the articles mentioned contraindications, 61 (32%) mentioned drug costs, 89 (46%) mentioned drug alternatives, and 30 (16%) mentioned nondrug treatment options (such as exercise or diet). Sixty-two percent (120/193) of the articles quoted at least one interviewee. After exclusion of industry and government spokespeople, for only 3% (5/164) of interviewees was there any mention of potential financial conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent (15/57) of the articles discussing a study included information on study funding.

INTERPRETATION: Our results raise concerns about the completeness and quality of media reporting about new medications.

Keywords:
Acetamides/adverse effects Advertising Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects Anticholesteremic Agents/adverse effects Antiviral Agents/adverse effects Bibliometrics* Canada Cholinesterase Inhibitors/adverse effects Consumer Product Safety Disclosure Drug Industry Estrogen Antagonists/adverse effects Heptanoic Acids/adverse effects Humans Indans/adverse effects Newspapers* Patient Education Pharmaceutical Preparations/adverse effects* Piperidines/adverse effects Prescriptions, Drug* Pyrroles/adverse effects Raloxifene/adverse effects Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Sulfonamides/adverse effects