Critical Evaluation of Drug Promotional Literature for Drugs Used in Cardiovascular Diseases
Keywords:
Drug promotion, WHO criteria, Brief prescription informationAbstract
Objective: This study was conducted to critically evaluate the drug promotional literature pertaining to drugs used in cardiovascular disorders using WHO criteria for ethical promotion of drugs.
Methods: The brochures were collected from physicians to whom it was circulated by the pharmaceutical representatives. These promotional literatures are tested against WHO criteria for ethical medicinal drug promotion. The claims, which are written on those promotional literatures, were categorized as claims about efficacy, safety, cost and convenience. Pictures, graphs and tables in the promotional literature were analysed based on their relevance, area covered and number. Area covered for providing abbreviated prescribing information or brief prescription information (BPI) is calculated.
Results: A total of 309 drug promotional literature pertaining to cardiovascular drugs collected. Analysis of these literature showed that none of the promotional literature fulfilled all the WHO criteria. All the materials mentioned INN and brand name of the product. The criteria presented least were adjuvants, overdosage information and cost of the drug. Majority of the literatures mentioned name and address of the manufacturer. Brief prescribing information was provided only in 13.9% of the literature. Area devoted for BPI was negligible when compared to the total area occupied for displaying colorful pictures, table, graphs etc. Among the pictures displayed in the literature, 37.7% of the pictures found to be totally irrelevant to the drug to be promoted. Among the drugs promoted, 47.1% were fixed dose combinations (FDCs) and the remaining were single drug preparations. Most of the claims were for efficacy claims. These claims in majority of the cases are exaggerated and without scientific basis.
Conclusion: None of the promotional literatures fulfilled all the WHO criteria for ethical promotion of drugs.
  Â
Â
Downloads
References
Shetty VV, Karve AV. Promotional literature: How do we
critically appraise? J Postgrad Med 2008;54(3):217-21.
Rohra DK, Gilani AH, Memon IK, Perven G, Khan MT, Zafar H, et
al. Critical evaluation of claims made by pharmaceutical
companies in drug promotional material in Pakistan. J Pharm
Pharm Sci 2006;9(1):50-9.
Villanueva P, Peiro S, Librero J, Pereiro I. Accuracy of
pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet
;361(9351):27-32.
Brody H. The company we keep: Why physicians should refuse to
see pharmaceutical representatives. Ann Fam Med 2005;3(1):82-5.
Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift
ever just a gift? JAMA 2000;283(3):373-80.
Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A Decade of direct-toconsumer
advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med
;357(7):673-81.
Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion. World Health
Organization.1988 May 13. [cited 2006 Dec 10]. Available from:
http/www.who.int/medicinedocs/collect/edmweb/pdf/whozi
p08e.pdf.
Mali SN, Dudhgaonkar S, Bachewar NP. Evaluation of rationality
of promotional drug literature using World Health Organization
guidelines. Indian J Pharmacol 2010;42(5):267-72.
Vlassov V, Mansfield P, Lexchin J, Vlassova A. Do drug
advertisements in Russian medical journals provide essential
information for safe prescribing? West J Med 2001;174(6):391-4.
Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Wallace RC, Mikulich VJ, Wilkes MS. The
quantity and quality of scientific graphs in pharmaceutical
advertisement. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18(4):294-7.