corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19251

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: news

Comer B
DDMAC pokes Allergan on eye drop direct mail
Medical Marketing & Media 2010 Dec 7
http://www.mmm-online.com/ddmac-pokes-allergan-on-eye-drop-direct-mail/article/192328/


Full text:

Allergan has a superiority complex when it comes to marketing its ophthalmic drops, as evidenced by a second DDMAC Untitled Letter posted online yesterday. This time, a direct mail piece targeting physicians made unsubstantiated superiority claims about Lumigan, an eye drop indicated for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

The four-page mailer paired Lumigan (bimatoprost ophthalmic) against latanoprost – the active ingredient in Pfizer’s Xalatan – and made use of a study that found Lumigan to be superior to latanoprost over time, specifically after 12 and 18 weeks. To make superiority claims, however, it’s necessary to support them with “two adequate and well-controlled, head-to-head trials comparing the IOP-lowering effect of each drug at all time points tested over at least 12 weeks,” according to the DDMAC missive. The study Allergan cited “does not constitute substantial evidence because it is an average of all the IOP time points tested,” the letter said.

Allergan received an Untitled Letter in September for making unsubstantiated superiority claims about Acuvail (ketorolac ophthalmic) in a journal ad, which used imagery to “misleadingly suggest that Acuvail confers more therapeutic benefits” than other ocular ketorolac products, according to the letter.

As a result of the Lumigan Untitled Letter, Allergan must immediately cease disseminating the mailer and respond in writing to Carole Broadnax, a regulatory review officer at DDMAC and author of the letter.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








What these howls of outrage and hurt amount to is that the medical profession is distressed to find its high opinion of itself not shared by writers of [prescription] drug advertising. It would be a great step forward if doctors stopped bemoaning this attack on their professional maturity and began recognizing how thoroughly justified it is.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963