Evaluating Vioxx
Drug advertising in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry, with multiple ads per drug being common encounters for the American consumer - magazines, commercials, product placement in movies or TV shows, banners on websites, before - after - or in the middle of a video - on average encountering 9 drug specific advertisements every single day. A study of drug advertisements from 2008 to 2010 indicates that 66% of the advertisements used contained misleading claims about their effectiveness in treatment.
So, it’s no wonder that some - or most of - those ads may be leaving out crucial information in order to appeal to the most amount of viewers possible - viewers with medical conditions wanting to get the most out of their drugs with the least amount of potentially risky side-effects in order to live healthy and productive lives.
In the case of one drug in particular - Vioxx - the side-effects far outweighed the benefits, with disastrous consequences. Vioxx was a drug approved by the FDA in 1999, and pulled from the market in 2004 after it was found that Vioxx caused heart problems, strokes, and deaths among patients undergoing the drug study for Vioxx at the time. There’s proof that even in 1999, during the initial study, that Vioxx caused heart problems in patients.
Now with an estimated 38,000 fatalities related to Vioxx use, it was still in its testing phase with patients health being tracked by experts - even in 1999 the heart attack risk was noted, yet testing wasn’t stopped by the experts whose responsibility was tracking health detriments. The longer a patient was exposed to Vioxx the greater the risk of heart attacks over time, and even after they stopped taking the drug the risks remained.
Vioxx was advertised as causing less gastrointestinal bleeding - an unwanted but uncommon side-effect. The safety panel failed the 4,000 Vioxx patients, and the millions that would take Vioxx until it was taken off the market, causing 88,000 heart attacks of which 38,000 died.
The safety panel had agreed with Merck to stop counting heart attacks after a cutoff date - which was one month before the study ended, so that when Merck wrote up the study it only needed to report 17 heart attacks - leaving out the 3 heart attacks which happened after the cutoff date.
Sources:
Faerber, A. E., & Kreling, D. H. (2014, January). Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs. Journal of general internal medicine. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889958/
Farha, Bryan. “Vioxx, Heart Attacks, OPIODS & Falls.” The Oklahoman, Oklahoman, 2 July 2013, https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2011/11/14/vioxx-heart-attacks-opiods-falls/60903589007/.
The Food and Drug Administration: The continued history of drug advertising. Weill Cornell Medicine Samuel J. Wood Library. (n.d.). Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://library.weill.cornell.edu/about-us/snake%C2%A0oil%C2%A0-social%C2%A0media-drug-advertising-your-health/food-and-drug-administration-continued
Grassley, Durbin op-ed: Shed Light on drug advertisements: U.S. senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Home. (2019, May 23). Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/commentary/grassley-durbin-op-ed-shed-light-drug-advertisements
Prakash, S. (2006, June 8). Conflicted safety panel let Vioxx study continue. NPR. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5462419
Robert Daemmrich Photography Inc. (n.d.). With claims mounting against drug maker Merck over its artiritis... Getty Images. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.gettyimages.fr/detail/photo-d%27actualit%C3%A9/with-claims-mounting-against-drug-maker-merck-over-photo-dactualit%C3%A9/539767516
Smithsonian Institution. “Vioxx, 25mg.” Smithsonian Institution, https://www.si.edu/object/vioxx-25mg:nmah_1427242.