Wall Street Journal - August 11, 1997
Yumiko Ono

The Food and Drug Administration Friday began allowing drug companies to advertise the benefits of their prescription drugs on TV if they also warn of the "most important" health risks and side effects.

Just hours later, during NBC's "Dateline," drug giant Glaxo Wellcome rushed out a 60-second ad that touts its Valtrex drug as a treatment for "outbreaks of genital herpes." As a young couple frolics in the park, the ad urges, "Don't wait," and offers a free trial coupon to take to the doctor. It also warns that people with "advanced HIV disease, bone marrow or kidney transplants" should alert their doctors.

Meanwhile, drug company Hoechst is expected to broadcast as early as today a new ad for its Allegra allergy drug that ticks off such side effects as "colds, flu, nausea or menstrual pain."

For drug companies, the new rules are a vast and long-hoped-for change from years of vagueness and consumer confusion caused by FDA rules. Under the old guidelines, companies could either name the prescription drug or identify the condition being treated, but couldn't do both in the same commercial unless they also included the whole, too-costly-for-TV litany of risks, research data and other prescribing information.

Many companies got around the issue by repeating the name of the drug without ever saying what it did -- "Ask your doctor about Allegra and really go for it this year," one typically confusing ad would say. Rules for print ads aren't being changed and still require the complete disclosure.

But the new rules for television are also creating a fresh set of challenges. Though companies can dispense with details of the drug by flagging a toll-free number or an Internet Web site, they still must disclose the most important health risks. The FDA hasn't specified whether these risks can simply be flashed onto the screen or must be read aloud. But it is expected to look at the ads individually to determine whether the overall context is fair and balanced.

With a lot of information to pack in, drug companies say their new ads probably will be long and expensive, and TV won't be suitable for every drug. In order to promote Allegra as a "prescription antihistamine for people 12 and over that gives you nondrowsy relief" while also urging viewers to read the magazine ad in Readers Digest and cramming in the warnings, "we don't think we can meet the guidelines in less than 60 seconds," says Diane Parks, a group product director for Hoechst. The company did save some money by using the same visuals as the previous ad, featuring a windsurfer sailing through a sprawling wheat field.

Others are treading cautiously, stressing that the new, bolder ads may not always be more effective in wooing consumers. Astra Merck, a joint venture between U.S. drug giant Merck and Swedish drug company Astra, already has submitted to the FDA a new TV campaign for its Prilosec drug for ulcer and heartburn and plans to broadcast its first television ad for the drug next month. But the company is still testing in focus groups a few concepts, including the traditional-style ad that says what the drug does but doesn't mention its name. If Astra Merck decides to go with the new rules, it must disclose, for instance, such common side effects as headache, diarrhea and abdominal pain.

Some drug companies caution that broadcasters may be resistant to running ads for prescription drugs that have particularly serious potential health risks. Spokespeople for NBC, CBS and ABC said they were reviewing the new FDA guidelines but declined to say whether they welcome the new drug ads.

Still, Madison Avenue is confident that a number of drug makers soon will join the bandwagon. Elated ad industry executives expect ad spending for prescription drugs to rise about 70% to $1 billion this year as TV spending booms in what once was largely a magazine market. And big drug companies, including Merck, are optimistic. Although the company has done only development work so far, "we are very seriously considering going forward with these ads," a spokeswoman says.

Glaxo Wellcome says it is planning to shift its ad spending to make more room for television ads, which on the highestrated shows can cost as much as $500,000 for a 30-second spot. Glaxo is planning another television ad for its smoking-cessation drug Zyban. Meanwhile, it is cutting spending on less efficient methods such as direct mail and even magazine ads in medical journals that target doctors. A company spokeswoman stresses, however, that it already is beefing up the sales force targeting doctors to ensure they get the message.

970811
WJ970802

Copyright © 1997 - The Wall Street Journal. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the WSJ Permissions Desk.

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1997. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1997. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .