An analysis of the warning letters issued by the FDA to pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding misleading health outcomes claims
Objective: To evaluate the number and type of warning letters issued by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to pharmaceutical manufacturers for promotional violations.
Methods: Two reviewers downloaded, printed and independently evaluated warning letters issued by the FDA to pharmaceutical manufacturers from years 2003-2008. Misleading claims were broadly classified as clinical, Quality-of-Life (QoL), and economic claims. Clinical claims included claims regarding unsubstantiated efficacy, safety and tolerability, superiority, broadening of indication and/or omission of risk information. QoL claims included unsubstantiated quality of life and/or health-related quality of life claims. Economic claims included any form of claim made on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies related to cost superiority of or cost savings from the drug compared to other drugs in the market.
Results: In the 6-year study period, 65 warning letters were issued by FDA, which contained 144 clinical, three QoL, and one economic claim. On an average, 11 warning letters were issued per year. Omission of risk information was the most frequently violated claim (30.6%) followed by unsubstantiated efficacy claims (18.6%). Warning letters were primarily directed to manufacturers of cardiovascular (14.6%), anti-microbial (14.6%), and CNS (12.5%) drugs. Majority of the claims referenced in warning letters contained promotional materials directed to physicians (57%).
Conclusion: The study found that misleading clinical outcome claims formed the majority of the promotional violations, and majority of the claims were directed to physicians. Since inadequate promotion of medications may lead to irrational prescribing, the study emphasizes the importance of disseminating reliable, credible, and scientific information to patients, and more importantly, physicians to protect public health.
2. Kamal KM, Deselle SD, Rane P, Parekh R, Zacker C. Content Analysis of FDA warning letters to Manufacturers of Pharmaceuticals and Therapeutic Biologicals for Promotional Violations. Drug Inf J. 2009;43:385-393.
3. Benson EB, Alfors SN. Prescription drug advertising and promotion: learnings from recent Food and Drug Administration warning letters. Drug Inf J. 2007;41:281-289.
4. Berry IR, Martin RP. The Pharmaceutical Regulatory Process. Second Edition. Informa Health Care. 2008; 371-386.
5. Berry IR. The Pharmaceutical Regulatory Process. Taylor & Francis e-Library.2005; 609-651.
6. Borchers AT, Hagie F, Keen CL, Gershwin ME. The History and Contemporary Challenges of the US Food and Drug Administration. Clin Ther. 2007;29(1):1-16.
7. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Division of Drug, Marketing, Advertising and Communications. Description .Silver Spring (MD): US FDA. http://fda.gov/cder/ddmac/ [Accessed April 2009]
8. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications. CDER Handbook: Warning Letter. Rockville (MD): US FDA. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/DrugMarketingAdvertisingandCommunications/ucm081617.htm [Accessed November 2009]
9. Mintzes B. Disease Mongering in Drug Promotion: Do Governments Have a Regulatory Role? PLoS Med. 2006;3(4):e198.
10. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Division of Drug, Marketing, Advertising and Communications. Description. Silver Spring, (MD): US FDA. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm090279.htm [Accessed November 2009]
11. United States Government Accountability Office. GAO-08-758T. Prescription Drugs: Trends in Oversight of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. May 8, 2008.
12. Klaus Krippendorf. Content analysis: An Introduction to its methodology. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 2008.
13. Gunter MJ. The role of the ECHO model in outcomes research and clinical practice improvement. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5(4 Suppl):S217-24.
14. Recent trends in DDMAC enforcement activity. (Aug 28, 2006) Food and Drug e-Alert. http://www.cov.com/files/Publication/0dd2bef8-c1d1-44a5-a7aa-9871458b0088/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/2b5fe504-baa4-4553-9db8-7f9505ed368a/665.pdf [Accessed October 2009]
15. The Best-Selling drugs In America. Pharmaceuticals. (Feb 26, 2006) http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/27/pfizer-merck-genentech-cx_mh_0224topsellingdrugs.html [Accessed April 2009]
16. Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/ [Accessed April 2009]
17. Trends in DDMAC Enforcement Activity During the Bush Administration. Food and Drug e-Alert; March 30, 2009. http://www.cov.com/files/Publication/6532be42-767e-4c2c-acc0-0c350eed5d8e/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/04b38cf7-655e-45d8-a98d-1cd0f595f212/Trends%20in%20DDMAC%20Enforcement%20Activity%20During%20the%20Bush%20Administration.pdf [Accessed November 2009]
18. Holmes ER, Desselle SP. Evaluating the balance of informative and persuasive content within product-specific print DTC ads. Drug Inf J. 2004;38:83-98.
19. Jackson J. FDAMA 1997 Section 114: Another Look. Value Health.2009;12(2):1-2.
20. Gellad ZF, Lyles KW. Direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. Am J Med. 2007;120(6):475-480.
21. Cardarelli R, Licciardone JC, Taylor LG. A cross-sectional evidence-based review of pharmaceutical promotional marketing brochures and their underlying studies: is what they tell us important and true? BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:13.
22. Drug Promotion what we know, what we have yet to learn. (2004) http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s8109e/s8109e.pdf [Accessed July 2011]
The authors hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey to Pharmacy Practice: (1) the right to grant permission to republish or reprint the stated material, in whole or in part, without a fee; (2) the right to print pr epublish copies for free distribution or sale; and (3) the right to republish the stated material in any format (electronic or printed). In addition, the undersigned affirms that the article described above has not previously been published, in whole or part, is not subject to copyright or other rights except by the author(s), and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere, except as communicated in writing to Pharmacy Practice with this document.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Author Self-Archiving Policy
Pharmacy Practice permits and encourages authors to post and archive the final pdf of the articles submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit its publication in this journal.