Now Congress is investigating the promotion of Vytorin as lawsuits against its makers pile up in state and federal courts. But Vytorin isn’t the only heavily promoted new drug to cause problems, so some congressmen are planning to pull in the reins of direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) has renewed the call to give regulators the power to ban DTC advertising for new prescription drugs when their safety profiles aren’t fully known. The would-be legislation, which emerged in 2007 but ultimately failed to pass, is plowing ahead in the wake of some heavily promoted but beleaguered blockbuster drugs.

Like Vytorin, Chantix and Vioxx were more or less indicted after tests and reports brought unknown risks to light, and each made billions in profit before negative news rained on their parade.

Rep. Waxman, who becomes chairman of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, has expressed his interest in revisiting the drug ad issue.

“It is these first few years of a drug’s life that drug companies often aggressively market their products and engage in direct-to-consumer advertising. This increases the number of consumers exposed to safety risks of new products long before those risks are truly understood,” Waxman said at a Prescription Project Conference.

Merck’s blockbuster anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx was taken by approximately 20 million people before its risk of cardiac events became known. Chantix was taken by millions of people as well before researchers understood the risks the drug posed for depression, suicide, and other serious side effects. And, of course, Vytorin, which millions of people took before one test exposed it as a dud and another as a possible caner risk.

To help ease the dangers posed by new medicines, Congress sought last year to give the FDA the authority to ban the television advertising of new prescription drugs for as long as three years if it was deemed necessary to protect the public. The ban would not be a blanket ban on all new prescription drugs, but would be enacted on a case by case basis.

Exaggerated benefits and minimized perception of side effects are two pitfalls of DTC advertising for the general public. Excessive prescribing is another, but that seems to be the whole point, at least from the drug manufacturers’ point of view. Television ads for new prescriptions aren’t made with the public’s good in mind. They’re made to maximize profit. Advertising for profit is the American way, but when it amounts to messing with the health of millions, clearly some restraint is needed.

According to a report by Reuters, drug makers claim that their ads are informative to the general public and that they have adopted voluntary guidelines that have them refrain from advertising for “an appropriate amount of time” so doctors can be informed of the new drugs first.

In the case of Merck’s diabetes drug Januvia, however, little time was wasted between the drug’s approval and Merck’s massive marketing efforts.

Another report by Reuters says that the “the product Web site was functional within 90 minutes of approval, and within eight days, Merck had reached 70 percent of target doctors and made first deliveries of [Januvia] to pharmacies. Within 14 days, discussions were completed with managed care organizations covering around 188 million patients or 73 percent of the insured U.S. population.”

The 2007 attempt failed after some lawmakers objected it would violate constitutional protections of free speech. Instead, Congress gave the FDA authority to fine companies for running false or misleading promotions.

Whatever restraint is exercised, no time is wasted in infiltrating the market.

The 2007 attempt to reign in advertising for new drugs failed after some lawmakers objected it would violate constitutionally protected free speech. Congress instead granted the FDA authority to fine drug companies for false or misleading advertising.

SOURCE: Vytorin Recall › Vytorin illustrates the problems of direct-to-consumer advertising

If Vytorin ad campaigns and promotional media were based on a false or misleading premise, and the drug isn’t all its manufacturers publicized it to be (as the drug trials suggest), then government programs spent millions of dollars on reimbursement for a drug that is ineffective, possibly dangerous, and much more expensive than generic cholesterol medications.

Additionally, 35 attorneys general are investigating to see if any state consumer protection laws were violated by the marketing.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is one of the state attorneys investigating the matter. “We believe that there are very real and serious issues that may have affected consumer pocketbooks, if not their health, and we intend to pursue these issues vigorously,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

Merck and Schering-Plough, both New Jersey based corporations, said they were cooperating with the investigations and jointly responding to the inquiries.

Earlier this year, the House Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigations into the safety of Vytorin and the ways in which the drug was marketed.

It is widely believed that Merck and Schering Plough concealed unfavorable trial results for up to two years in an effort to protect the drug’s stellar sales. Both companies deny the accusation that trial data were withheld.

Vytorin is already the subject of a number of lawsuits seeking class action status. Approximately 140 such suits have been filed across the country.

SOURCE: Vytorin Recall › Investigations of Vytorin marketing intensifying

To be completely fair, pharmaceutical companies continually develop vaccines and medicines that improve the quality of life for millions of people throughout the world. Many modern pharmaceuticals also extend and save lives. In the western world, we can’t imagine life without these modern medicines.

However, events surrounding the drug Vytorin have cast into doubt the intentions – and the integrity – of pharmaceutical giants Merck and Schering-Plough. As marketing expert Rob Frankel recently told Advertising Age magazine, “The pharmas are in big trouble in terms of credibility. They’re just above congress and used-car salesmen.”

Why?

First there is the ENHANCE study that revealed the pairing of Zetia and Zocor to be no more effective than Zocor alone in treating arterial plaque. But more than the disappointing results, there was the delay in making this information public. Results of the ENHANCE trial were completed in April 2006 but were not released until January 2008, after mounting pressure and suspicion over the delay.

On May 1, 2007, before the ENHANCE results were made public, Schering-Plough’s president Carrie Smith Cox, dumped 900,000 shares of company stock, worth an estimated $28 million. The sale prompted Congress to investigate the upper realms of Schering-Plough for concrete evidence of insider trading.

While ENHANCE data were being withheld, Merck and Schering-Plough continued to heavily advertise Vytorin, spending hundreds of millions on the famous commercials featuring the aunt who looks like a pot roast. The companies knew the results of the study, yet their aggressive marketing raked in $3-5 billion per year since Vytorin’s appearance on the market. Meanwhile, patients continually overpaid for a drug that didn’t do what the ads claimed it would do.

Congress again stepped in to demand answers as to why consumers, including the federal government, had been fleeced for so long. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to the top of both companies in which he stated, “I have an obligation to the more than 80 million Americans who receive health care coverage under Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that taxpayer and beneficiary dollars are spent in a fiscally sound manner.” In the same letter, he also pointed out that at, “… a Wal-Mart pharmacy in Iowa City, generic simvastatin costs $54.54 for a month’s supply. On the other hand, Vytorin costs $112.46–more than twice as much.”

The federal government is also investigating why the ENHANCE test results released by Merck and Schering-Plough differ from the information released by those who conducted the study. A letter from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce to Fred Hassan (Schering-Plough) and Richard T. Clark (Merck) states, “The ENHANCE trial was completed in 2006, and yet no data from the trial have been published or presented in their entirety. In fact, it appears that the study itself was not registered with ClinicalTrials.gov until October 31, 2007, a full 18 months after completion of the study. In addition, the endpoint indicated in the ClinicalTrials.gov web site appears to differ from the endpoint described in the initial study design.”

Representative Bart Stupak , D-Mich, told CBS’s Early Show “There’s certainly major misrepresentations not only to the effectiveness of the drug, but manipulating of the scientific data to further promote a product that isn’t doing what it was designed to do.”

With all of the controversy surrounding Vytorin, it would seem that Schering-Plough has sought to earn more mistrust every day and that Merck intentionally put profits before people.

SOURCE: Vytorin Recall › Vytorin scandals evoke mistrust