I posted last year about all the trouble Pfizer got into by using Robert Jarvik, the developer of the artificial heart, as their spokesman for the most commonly prescribed statin drug Lipitor.  Pfizer has taken a new tack and is now bombarding the airwaves with yet another commercial for Lipitor using as their spokesman an actual victim of a heart attack.

They chose a 58 year old California ad man and talent agent named John Erlendson who did indeed have a heart attack at age 57, and who was not taking any cholesterol-lowering medicines prior to that.  As opposed to the Gollum-like Jarvik, Mr. Erlendson comes across as a sincere guy who is genuinely distraught over his medical condition.  He is easy to empathize with.

Pfizer spent $181 million advertising Lipitor last year, and if the frequency with which they are running their new ad is any indication, I’m sure they are not pinching pennies with their ad budget now. It’s difficult to have a television on for half an hour and not see Mr. Erlendson at least once.  But, hey, what’s a measly $181 million when you’ve got sales of $12.7 billion?  I’ll take that deal any day.

Read more »

In my mailbox today (click to enlarge)

If you don’t think high-fructose corn syrup is taking an economic hit, read on.

I went to the mailbox today and retrieved a package from the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), the lobbying group for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  It was addressed to me in the same style that all my medical junk mail comes in, so I assume the above group bought a mailing list of primary care physicians from the American Medical Association, which sells such lists.  I tore open the large envelope and looked at the contents, which are all pictured above.  Having done a number of mailings in my lifetime, I’ve got a pretty good handle on what such a mailing costs.  I would reckon that in the volume they purchased, these pieces probably set them back at least a couple of bucks apiece.  Add the postage and the list rental and your probably looking at a couple of million dollars, if not more, to send this thing out to all the primary care docs in the country.

Read more »

Despite the fact that statin drugs are the best-selling medications in history, accounting for some $40 billion plus in sales world wide last year, they had a very bad week this past week. And it looks like their scrutiny is going to pick up a little.

The Vytorin trial that finally came to light late last week kicked off the cascade of bad news. It appears that the combination of a statin and Zetia, despite lowering cholesterol levels by 40 percent more than a statin, was no more effective than the statin alone in preventing problems. Which would lead anyone with critical thinking skills to wonder about the hypothesis that LDL-cholesterol is really a problem.

The next day the New York Times, in an article that wasn’t all that anti-statin, started thusly: Read more »

All I can say is thank God I morphed out of my regular medical practice and into nutritional medicine before the legalization of drug advertising on television. I watch very little TV – mainly NFL games, and usually only those I have a bet on – but even with the minimal amount I do watch I’m exposed to a ton of pharmaceutical ads.

These ads play on the relationship between patients and their doctors to make the drug company cash registers go ching ching ching.

Here is the way the system works. A person watching TV sees an ad for, say, a ‘new’ sleep medication promising a restful night’s sleep. This usually doesn’t prompt a call to the physician for a prescription, but during the next visit to the doc this person says, Hey Dr. So and So, I saw an ad for that new sleep medicine Lunesta. I’ve been having a little trouble sleeping, so could I give that a try? Most physicians will go ahead and write a prescription for that drug. Problem is, the drugs advertised on TV are typically much more expensive than the older drugs that may have gone off patent already and can be had as generics. And the new drugs aren’t any more efficacious than the old drugs. It doesn’t cost the doctor any money to write these prescriptions, so he/she will usually do it. The patient gets a medicine that costs him/her (or the insurance company) a lot more money for a drug that works no better than a cheaper one. So who wins in all this? The drug company, of course.

Read more »