A cross sectional study of drug promotional literatures in a tertiary care hospital
Keywords:Drug promotion literatures, Ethical drug promotions, Rational drug prescribing, WHO guidelines
Background: Arrival of 100s of new drugs into the market every year makes the rational use of drugs a challenge to the practitioners. The product promotion by pharmaceutical companies disseminates ambiguous drug information through medical representatives using drug promotion literatures (DPLs) which influence the physicians’ prescribing pattern. Objective of the study was to evaluate DPLs for accuracy, consistency, and validity using WHO criteria for ethical medicinal drug promotion.
Methods: DPLs collected from different OPDs were analyzed and evaluated as per WHO criteria. References of DPLs in support of the claims were critically analyzed for their retrievability and validity.
Results: 50 DPLs of 76 drugs were collected and analyzed. Of which 49 were FDCs and 27 single drug formulations. None of the DPLs fulfilled all the WHO criteria. Only 26% (13) fulfilled a maximum of 8 WHO criteria. Out of 88 references given in support of claims, 17% (15) of the references were irretrievable, 62 were from journals, 4 from textbooks and 7 from website. Almost all the DPLs had pictures of which only 50% (49) were relevant.
Conclusions: Information provided is incomplete and biased. Hence, health care professionals must evaluate DPLs critically before considering the same for prescribing.
Mikhael EM. Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of the promotional brochures for the generic pharmaceutical companies in Iraq using World Health Organization guidelines. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences. 2015;7(1):65-8.
Mali SN, Dudhgaonkar S, Bachewar NP. Evaluation ofrationality of promotional drug literature using World Health Organizationguidelines. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(5):267,8211.
Lal A. Pharmaceutical drug promotion: How it is being practiced in India? J Assoc Physicians India. 2001;49:266-73.
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 Family Practice. 2006;7:13.
Gupta SK, Nayak RP, Sivaranjani R. A study on the interactions of doctors with medical representatives of pharmaceutical companies in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital of South India. Journal of pharmacy and bioallied sciences. 2016;8(1):47-51.
Rohra DK, Gilani AH, Memon IK, Perven G, Khan MT, Zafar H, et al. Critical evaluation of claims made by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotional material in Pakistan. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci. 2006;9:50.
Francer J, Izquierdo JZ, Music T. Ethical pharmaceutical promotion and communications worldwide: codes and regulations. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine : PEHM. 2014;9:7.
Stryer D, Bero LA. Characteristics of materials distributed by drug companies. An evaluation of appropriateness. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:575-83.
Saibhavana D, Chowta MN, Chowta NK. Critical evaluation of drug promotional literature for drugs used in cardiovascular diseases. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2014;7(4):405-7.
Khakhkhar T, Mehta M, Shah R, Sharma D. Evaluation of drug promotional literatures using WHO guidelines. Journal of Pharmaceutical negative results. 2013;4(1):33-8.
Jadav SS, Dumatar CB, Dikshit RK. Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) Evaluation as per World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science. 2014;4(6):084-8.
Randhawa GK, Singh NR, Rai J, Kaur G, Kashyap R. A Critical Analysis of Claims and Their Authenticity in Indian Drug Promotional Advertisements. Advances in Medicine. 2015. Article ID469147.
Nath S, Bhowmick S, Dutta T, Mukherjee PK. A study of promotional advertisements of drugs in a medical journal: an ethics perspective. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014;11(4):237-41.