It is no secret that drug maker ads have gravitated to TV leaving medical journals, who used to rely on them for income, high and dry. But does that excuse the journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) becoming an unabashed drug maker stenographer as it recently did?
In July the journal published pro-drug “research” not only written by employees of the company that makes the drug (Tremfya or guselkumab), Janssen-Cilag but funded by the drug maker! Who can say conflict of interest?
Shocking Conflicts of Interest at the Journal of the American Medical Association
In a 929 word disclosure, author financial links to Janssen appeared 35 times (no surprise since the “research” itself was funded by the drug maker.) Financial links to AbbVie appeared nine times, links to Novartis nine times, links to Lilly seven times, links to Johnson & Johnson seven times and there were also author financial links to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myres Squibb and other drug makers.
Do doctors, the drug makers who fund them and the journals who publish their commercials believe the disclosures somehow mean that the researchers’ findings were not affected by their paychecks? I have personally attended medical conferences in which presenters showed as many as 14 slides of their financial links to drug makers and then proceeded to give their talk as if their disclosure somehow removed their bias.
Drug Maker Marketing Has Morphed
There was a time when drug maker reps swarmed hospitals and doctor offices with their Vytorin tote bags and fancy clothes. One doctor said he liked to meet with the attractive drug reps, often hired for their looks, because they were a counterpoise to the sick, sad and sometimes ornery patients who populated his days. Some doctor offices had dedicated rooms for the reps with wifi, swivel chairs and pitchers of water. Reps sometimes saw the doctors before ailing patients.
But then the landscape changed. Not only did patient advocates object to the carte blanche given to drug salesmen in medical settings and the influence their “gifts” of free lunches and travel conferred, direct-to-consumer ads became cheaper than hiring drug reps and, to a large extent, replaced them.
You May Be Suffering From …
Anyone who watches TV, whether network or cable, has seen the unrelenting “ask your doctor” ads which have become the primary revenue for entertainment and news programs. The drugs hawked by these commercials are “large molecules,” or biologics often produced by genetic engineering in recombinant technology, injected and expensive. Yes, they are GMOs. The TV ads are supplemented by online “quizzes” designed to convince patients that they have the advertised disease and need to ask their doctor for the advertised drug.
Most “disease awareness” ads (also called “unbranded advertising” because they do not mention the drug they are trying to sell by hyping a disease) appear to be for the “public good” instead of drug ads. Moreover, since most biologics that are advertised suppress the immune system and invite cancer, many consider their use “overkill” for non-lethal conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis. Why? Because the side effects listed in the TV ads usually sound worse than the condition the drug is supposed to treat.
JAMA Repeats Drug Marketing
What is the conclusion of the Jannsen-funded research published in JAMA in July? “[I]n patients with early complete skin clearance at 2 consecutive visits (W20 and W28), extending the guselkumab dosing interval may control disease activity.” (Guselkumab is sold by Jannsen as Tremfya to treat plaque psoriasis.)
On cue, news sites breathlessly blasted the announcement that “guselkumab is effective for plaque psoriasis” – the exact effect the drug maker-funded JAMA article was intended to have. How could it be untrue if it is in a medical journal?
