The [1] lawyers and settlements blog has a great article that gives a good little synopsis of the arguments against direct-to-consumer advertising in the US, or as we call it in Europe, information to patients. It strikes me as an odd source for a feature on this blog, but I won’t let that get in the way of my enjoying a well written, rational article.While I highly recommend you go [2] there and read it, here are a few of the main points made in the article:

• Industry spending on marketing went up from $11 billion in 1996 to $30 billion in 2005
• Between 1999 and 2000, sales of advertised drugs increased by 24% (!!!), compared with just 4.3% for non-advertised drugs.
• Most interestingly, several states are proposing legislation that will curb direct to consumer advertising, or, at least, force pharmaceutical companies to be more open about their marketing practices. Good progress, I say.

It’s really easy to downplay the effects that marketing practices have. After all, how could a simple advert have such a profound effect on consumer practice? But the evidence speaks for itself, and companies wouldn’t be spending so much money on marketing if it didn’t work.The upside of that is, if marketing is the reason that some drugs do well, where does that leave evidence-based medicine?