AstraZeneca digs in over advertising criticisms
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1035-a (Published 29 April 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1035
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Bob Burton's report is an excellent summary of the main issues.
However one sentence requires clarification:
"Dr Mansfield argues that comparing esomeprazole 40 mg with various
brands of omeprazole 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg is inappropriate and was
disclosed only in the advertisement's small print."
I guess I did not explain the complexities well enough on the phone.
The following is more accurate:
"Dr Mansfield argues that claiming that esomeprazole 40 mg has
"greater power" based only on comparisons with omeprazole 20 mg and
lansoprazole 30mg is inappropriate and disclosing those doses only in the
advertisement's small print section is unhelpful."
(The footnote disclaimer in some of the advertisements is arguably
larger than small print but is always in the small print section of the
advertisement.)
As of 10:15 am Australian Central Standard Time Friday 30 April 2004
we have not even received an acknowledgement from AstraZeneca. Clearly
they do not yet have a customer service focused corporate culture.
AstraZeneca's defence of their advertising is based mostly on
information that is not relevant and omits important relevant information.
If AstraZeneca can show that Nexium is better for severe reflux
disease then they deserve a price premium but only for that small market.
If they want to sell it for everyone with reflux they should make it more
cost effective by reducing the price. Meanwhile promotion-driven overuse
of Nexium is causing opportunity costs involving significant harm for
large numbers of people.
If AstraZeneca are unable to make improvements or explain why
improvements are not needed then we will have little choice but to make a
complaint to the Medicines Australia self-regulatory system. If the
Medicines Australia self-regulatory system is unable to achieve
improvements or explain why improvements are not needed then we would have
little choice but to complain to the government regulatory agencies,
medical organisations, politicians and the public.
Healthy Skepticism Inc represents a market segment that is small but
growing in number and influence. We are health professionals and members
of the public who are not willing to accept without question what we are
told by vested interests. Drug companies will do better in the long term
by learning how to work with us rather than dismiss our carefully
documented concerns.
Competing interests:
I am the director of Healthy Skepticism Inc and the editor of Healthy Skepticism AdWatch.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Nexium Australian Advertisement
Peter Mansfield seeks to 'clarify and update' your news article and
uses the opportunity to restate his opinion of a Nexium advertisement
which appeared last year in Australia. He is pursuing his campaign through
his Healthy Skepticism Adwatch vehicle.
Some 5 months ago, ahead of him publishing his criticisms, we sent
him a comprehensive, evidence based response to his challenges about our
claims for Nexium. In our advertisement we claim that Nexium 40mg offers
greater healing power than omeprazole or lansoprazole. The clinical trial
evidence clearly supports that claim and Australian code of practice
adjudicators have judged that the claim 'could be supported and was not
misleading' .
At AstraZeneca we take advertising standards very seriously and went
to some considerable trouble to respond fully to Dr Mansfield's concerns.
I regret that he appears unwilling to accept the clinical evidence or the
judgement of independent adjudicators.
Competing interests:
I am an employee of AstraZeneca
Competing interests: No competing interests