Having HSV-1 I always hoped and prayed that I would get HSV-2. I mean, V*ltrex shows me that a vacation comes with HSV-2!
On a more serious note;
The Va*trex ads are the biggest bit of scaremongering I've ever seen. "I don't want to give it to my partner..." (which loosely translates into "You will transfer it to your partner if you don't take V*ltrex") If you're married how the fuck should that matter (Herpes isn't the end of the world)? Is everyone in those goddamn ads just dating for now? are they all fucking out of wedlock? It's absurd.
asterisks for spam blockage
The sad thing is how many people take these ...
Generally, if an ad says "ask your doctor about ProductName" ... don't.
Read http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/04/vytorin.html for one opinion of why this latest study is kind of a clusterfuck from the getgo. The main takeway is that V*torin is better than Z*cor alone when it comes to LDL levels, total cholesterol levels, and something called CRP.
Anyways, it sounds like a fairly thorough bit of incompetence and questionable judgment from everyone, including the manufacturer (who acted unethically in trying to suppress the results), the study organizers (who studied something twice removed from the actual goal), and the press (who's a sucker for a dramatic headline like "V*torin doesn't work" when the truth is more nuanced).
Is there an example of direct-to-consumer drug advertising that is actually helpful?
Looking at the image, I thought it was some sort of combined cholesterol-reducing (the piece of pie, on the right) and anti-anxiety (your annoying granny, on the left) medication...
I just watched Michael Clayton two days ago. Creepy.
All of these "ask your doctor about..." ads crack me up. I mean, if your doctor even has the remotest glimmer of a clue, he should be on top of this shit and you shouldn't NEED to ask, right?
The bigger issue is the marketing of this drug to physicians, who are the ones that write the prescription. This was a drug heavily pitched by drug reps, who never had the data on outcomes to support it.
@4 - yes. Aspirin. One of the better - and cheaper - meds that actually does a lot of good.
@7, that always confused me too, especially coming from ads where they never even hint at what the drug is supposed to treat. Do I just go to the doctor with a list of every drug my TV told me I should ask him out, and go down the line?
You shouldn't bother asking your doctor about Vytorin, because your insurance company isn't going to pay for it. You see, Insurance Companies realize the average t.v watching, pill popper is a total nincompoop who demands whatever the hell it is Big Pharm is advertising on t.v even though they don't know what it is and don't need it. Your insurance company, cheap bastards that they are, will only approve coverage for generics ($5.00 co-pay) and expect you to cough up the extra couple of hundred dollars a month for your brand name, as-seen-on-t.v medication.
Vytorin is $3-$4 a day and it is nowhere near as effective as generic statins costing a tiny fraction.
As cute as the commercial are (who doesn't like being compared to baked ham or a platter of fried chicken?), it's one of the things I'm hoping for with a Democratic administration - removing prescription drug advertising from TV and magazines (it was once banned). Prescription drugs aren't really a free market commodity in the sense that I chose this drug over that drug. That decision is made by my doctor, my pharmacist, and my health care provider.
Well, they should do that, and the government should do that if or when we get single payer health care. Unless you have documentation that the generic doesn't work or doesn't work well enough, you shouldn't be able to use the name brand.
This was actually a pretty big story in the mainstream press in January when Merck and Plough-Schering released preliminary results under Congressional pressure. So, I'd hope you're not right about the ignorance of "the vast majority" w/r/t Vytorin and Zetia.
You know what else is irritating? Giant Canadian media conglomerate CanWest Mediaworks wants a piece of that profit pie so bad they're shamelessly charging that our restriction on d-t-c drug advertising is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, they're framing it as a human-rights issue, claiming they are being denied the right to freedom of speech. This despite the fact that they are only restricted from advertising for the drugs, not from including them in editorial content.
If they win, I guess we'll be getting extra-large servings of this crap every day, too. Can't wait.
You're right, and I thought about mentioning that very point in my original post. But more in the sense that *even with* mainstream media coverage, vastly more people were/are exposed to the ads than any sort of honest reporting on the subject.
Hmm. After this round of layoffs, does the Seattle Times have any science reporters?
The USAToday has had two page ads for this crap several times in the last week. Business section, natch. Doesn't their advertising department bother to read the paper?
Of course the MDs practically parrot the commercials. In my practice as a cardiac nurse, many of my patients have said "Dr. ___
told me that Vytorin works best for me."
As if this costly combo med is tailored to their lipid problem.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).